Māori Trustee and Māori Development Amendment Bill

It looked good, as well.

We first got notice of the Māori Trustee and Māori Development Amendment Bill when it was included in a Māori Purposes Bill—something that is supposed to be non-controversial. The Minister thought that he might be able to slip this one through, no worries, and get it passed. But it was the National Party that saw through this. This is nothing more and nothing less than what should be called the “Māori Trustee Theft Bill”. Although I think that Dr Cullen has expertise in a lot of areas, I wonder why he led off the debate and not the Minister of Māori Affairs. This bill is in the name of the Minister of Māori Affairs. It is not the Deputy Prime Minister’s bill; it is not the Minister of Finance’s bill.

We have worked out that this is nothing more than the theft of $35 million. I will tell the community now, and the members of the Māori Party if they are listening, that I expect those Māori Party members to stand in the House tonight and do exactly what they did with the foreshore and seabed legislation, which was promulgated by the same Minister—that is, to vote against the theft of $35 million of beneficiary money. This is money that does not belong to every Māori in this country. It is money that belongs to beneficiaries who are beneficiaries of trusts and who are owners of land that has been put in the hands of the Māori Trustee to look after.

What we have in this bill is nothing more than the development of an old idea—a Māori bank. But this is not a Māori bank like the Poutama. The Hon Shane Jones used to be the chairman of the Poutama Māori Business Trust, and not a skerrick of any of that money went to the community for the development of any business ideas, or towards any development ideas. What is the Minister doing about Māori development? He is preparing to thieve $35 million out of the back pockets of beneficiaries and use it for Māori development!

I have here a little piece of paper about this that was pushed through to us, and it says that the bill will establish a new, independent statutory corporation. Well, it cannot be independent, because all the appointees to this corporation are appointed by the Minister of Māori Affairs and the Minister of Finance, for goodness’ sake. It is nothing more than a Labour Party slush fund for Labour’s mates.

The Minister of Māori Affairs has that little grin on his face that he gets when he has been found out. The Māori world is very small. There have been fellas who have come up to me and said: “Hey, bro, what’s this thing that Parekura is on about? You know, this corporation—he’s asked me to serve on it.” One should not try to keep secrets in the Māori world, because they get out. They dribble out now and then at different hui around the motu. So I asked this fella whether he knew that $35 million was being thieved out of the back pockets of Māori and given over to a corporation, basically to do what is a State obligation. It is not a Māori obligation; it is a State obligation. The next thing we know, Māori education will be being paid for out of the back pockets of beneficiaries who have a little bit of the 6 percent of land that is now in the hands of Māori. Up on the East Coast there is quite a bit of land that comes under the Māori Trustee. I wonder what those people would say about their money going out of their back pockets to fund some idea that this corporation has.

It’s his own people.

Blumsky Mark Blumsky Link to this

Absolutely. They are the Ngāti Porou people, and the honourable Minister is a member of that tribal district.

He’s looking uncomfortable.

He always looks uncomfortable. It may not be this bill. He always looks uncomfortable.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Paraone Pita Paraone Link to this

I will quote from a report that was done, ironically, by Richard Charters, Annette Sykes, and Tama Nīkora way back when the Rt Hon Winston Peters was Minister of Māori Affairs. The report states: “The Māori Trustee must not provide funds for the Māori Education Foundation, philanthropic purposes, or the Māori Council.”—that is, anything else other than the beneficiaries of this money. It states further: “These activities are affairs of State, not beneficiaries.”

I also point to the report of the Controller and Auditor-General in his report of, I think, 2004, in which he said: “The Trustee’s main role is to manage Māori land on behalf of its owners, mostly through leasing for conventional farming. … The trustee also disburses rental funds, and invests client funds when requested.” The report of the Auditor-General goes on to state that the trustee’s purpose is to “protect the interests of Maori clients and their land …”. That basically says that this is not an issue about Māori development. That can happen; that is the State’s responsibility. This is about a property right, and the use of a property right, that does not belong to all Māori. It does not belong to me; it belongs to the beneficiaries. In the same way that the Māori Party was created out of the furore of a property rights issue—the foreshore and seabed—I would suggest that everybody, including the Greens, vote against—[Interruption] I say to Ms Turei that it is OK to have one view on one property rights issue, but it is not OK to have another view on another property rights issue.

At least New Zealand First has the principled approach of sending things to a select committee. It does not buy into this carry-on of having one view one day and the next day having another view on pretty much the same thing. At least New Zealand First sends things to a select committee, and then things are discussed there.

For the Government to put its hand in somebody else’s pocket is absolutely wrong. This is about property rights. This is about the theft of $35 million of beneficiary money. It is not for all Māori. It does not belong to all Māori. How dare the Government get up on its hind legs and say that this money belongs to all Māori. It does not. I cannot wait to get around the traps and say to Māori: “Here we go again.” A couple of years ago the Government tried it, and the birth of the Māori Party happened. This time there will be more people who look at the DigiPoll and say: “Yeah, I thought so. Labour isn’t doing anything for us.”

The “Dodgypoll”.

Oh, that is right—the “Dodgypoll”. The fact of the matter is that Labour has been behind in every poll since March last year. At the end of the day that is all it is about. Whether we see this bill go to the select committee is another story. The fact of the matter is that it is not long to go before we see the back end of this Government.

Robertson The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) Link to this

I call the honourable Minister Parekura Horomia.

Mapp Dr Wayne Mapp Link to this

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a matter of order. The Minister was meant to take his turn earlier in the piece, and I actually called you before he did. I am sorry—Dr Cullen took his call.

Robertson The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) Link to this

Can I just advise the member that it is not a race about who stands up first and gets the call. Dr Cullen rightly took the first Labour call, and the Hon Parekura Horomia is taking the third Labour call, which he is entitled to do.

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

I listened with interest to the member who has just spoken, Tau Henare. All of the things he has talked about are all of the things he did not do.

The Māori Trustee and Māori Development Amendment Bill is about doing something for the future of Māori. The changes set out in this bill provide the foundations for real and significant progress on key issues affecting Māori. The bill provides a new start for the Māori Trustee by setting the trustee up as a stand-alone organisation and making a number of associated changes. The bill also establishes a new statutory corporation to further Māori economic development for the benefit of the beneficiaries, which will bring a more cohesive approach to realising the potential of Māori business. The new corporation has the working name of Māori Business Aotearoa New Zealand—or MBANZ. To reflect these changes the bill amends the title of the Maori Trustee Act 1953 to the Māori Trustee and Māori Development Act 1953. These initiatives will help Māori to make the most of opportunities for development and innovation.

The bill amends provisions relating to the Māori Trustee’s organisational form and financial accountability. The Māori Trustee undertakes a range of important and valued functions set out in the Maori Trustee Act and other legislation. The bill does not amend these functions, which include administering land where the owners have not been located or where the owners have asked the trustee to do so.

At present the Māori Trustee is an office conferred on an employee of Te Puni Kōkiri. The bill will establish the Māori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation that is separate from Te Puni Kōkiri. This will underline the independence of the Māori Trustee in carrying out the positions and fiduciary responsibilities.

The bill provides for robust accountability for public funding by including the Māori Trustee on the fourth schedule of the Public Finance Act 1989. This will have the effect of applying appropriate reporting, and other accountability provisions, to the Māori Trustee in respect of funding provided by the Crown, while maintaining the Māori Trustee’s independence. The reporting requirements will include preparing an annual report with a statement of service performance. Many a time in this House there have been challenges to organisations that have not done that. The bill provides that the Māori Trustee will be appointed by the Minister of Māori Affairs for a renewable term of up to 5 years. Further amendments enable the new stand-alone Māori Trustee to employ his or her own staff and appoint a deputy Māori Trustee.

The bill also makes changes to the way in which interest on money held in trust in the common fund is determined, and this is one of the key issues. The bill provides that the Māori Trustee must pay the amount earned by the trustee in interest, less the management fee. The Māori Trustee will be required to review the amounts paid on a quarterly basis in light of appropriate market rates, given the nature of the common fund and the conditions under which the trustee operates.

Together these changes underline the Māori Trustee’s role and independence and enhance accountability for public funding, while protecting and furthering the interest of the trustee’s beneficiaries. In August and September last year Māori were consulted on proposals to set up the Māori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation, and there was a good turn-out at the consultation hui held around the country—owners turned out in their hundreds. There was broad-based support for the proposals I have just outlined, provided that the Māori Trustee would be funded on a viable basis.

The second major initiative in this bill is the establishment of a new statutory corporation. This will have the principal function of furthering Māori economic development by utilising the potential of resources available to Māori. The new statutory corporation has the working name of MBANZ—Māori Business Aotearoa New Zealand. It is the result of careful consideration of how to achieve greater synergies between development activities already being undertaken by Te Puni Kōkiri, the Māori Trustee, the Government, and, potentially, other organisations.

During consultation with Māori earlier this year on the proposals for a stand-alone Māori Trustee, a wider discussion emerged at hui about the possibility of the Māori Trustee taking more of a leadership role to promote Māori development. This feedback has been taken into account in the development of the new corporation.

The board of the statutory corporation will be chaired by the Māori Trustee. The remaining members will be appointed by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Māori Affairs, with the Māori Trustee. The board will be able to undertake services that enable it to fulfil its principal functions. These can include business support services, identifying opportunities for economic development, and developing the capacity to make loans and other payments to help beneficiaries and Māori set up new or developing businesses. As with any new body of this nature, key considerations for the board will include its strategic direction, and the nature and extent of the services it will be able to provide within its statutory responsibilities, as the corporation gets under way.

The corporation will be responsible for a new fund to enable it to carry out its functions. The fund will be made up of a significant contribution from the Government, and a contribution of $35 million transferred from the general purposes fund. The general purposes fund is one of the funds that the Māori Trustee is responsible for under the Māori Trustee Act, and currently it can be used for some development activities. There is the potential also for contributions from other organisations, and that issue has been discussed. There will be ongoing discussions to ensure that that happens.

The bill has a number of provisions that set out the powers, duties, and responsibilities of the board. The bill sets out accountability requirements, which include holding a yearly public meeting, and commissioning, at regular intervals, an independent review of the corporation’s performance.

Finally, the bill provides for a new schedule dealing with the detail of the board’s operations. The bill reflects the Government’s commitment to enabling Māori to realise their potential. It helps to ensure that the Māori Trustee is well placed to provide services to Māori in the future, and this bill is about the Māori Trustee in the future. The new statutory incorporation, chaired by the Māori Trustee, will provide a cohesive focus for Māori economic development.

Thieves.

Horomia Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA Link to this

That member chortles about thievery. Why are those members afraid of making the Māori Trustee stronger, giving the Māori Trustee independence, and ensuring that beneficiaries know where to go, know how to go, and know that they are continuously supported? There has been consultation on this matter, and I want to share with the House that this bill will be one of the great advancements for Māori in this country.

Henare Hon TAU HENARE (National) Link to this

I seek the leave of the House to table a briefing note from the Minister about where the $35 million is coming from.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Henare Hon TAU HENARE (National) Link to this

I seek the leave of the House to table a copy of the 2004 report of the Controller and Auditor-General.

Robertson The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) Link to this

Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.

Henare Hon TAU HENARE (National) Link to this

I seek the leave of the House to table a copy of the 1991 review of the Office of the Māori Trustee.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) Link to this

The Māori Trustee and Māori Development Amendment Bill will be a good test of the position of the Māori Party, the Greens, and New Zealand First, because they need to reflect pretty clearly on what this Labour-led Government is doing in misappropriating $35 million of identifiable Māori moneys. Therefore the consultation should have been with those identifiable persons and land trusts. So this bill will be a very good test of where the Māori Party, the Greens, Metiria Turei, and New Zealand First stand in relation to a Government that seeks to misappropriate Māori moneys. That is exactly what is being done with this bill.

Dr Cullen, who hurriedly took a call because the Minister in charge of this bill was not ready to take the call, gave two reasons for it. Firstly, he said there was a lot of dead money, or poorly used money, sitting around. Secondly, he said the Māori Trustee needed to be reorganised or reformed to face the challenges of the future. So what is the Government’s answer? Its answer is, basically, to set the Māori Trustee up on a funding agreement with the Government, to make the Māori Trustee dependent, now, on the Government, and also to set up a new corporation to be funded, by and large, by Māori moneys—$35 million—taken from the Māori Trustee and put into a new corporation that will be there for the development of all Māori. I ask the House whether the same thing would happen in the general environment. For instance, would New Zealanders agree to the Public Trust’s funds being taken, misappropriated, put into another corporation, and used for the development of all New Zealanders? I do not think so, but that is exactly the same as what is happening under this bill.

However much the Government wants to dress the situation up and say there is a general purposes fund that is available for development, there is no getting past the point that the Government is misappropriating Māori moneys. The Government actually tried to do that recently with regard to the Crown Forestry Rental Trust. That trust’s moneys are not necessarily all Māori moneys, but it is likely that a fair proportion is. Last November, to the Government’s discredit, again through not understanding the responsibilities of trusteeship, the Government tried to take to itself, in the settlement with Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa Trust, moneys from that fund to put into this new corporation. But that was stopped by Māori, through a court action. I hope that Māori do the same here. I hope that those who are discernible Māori beneficiaries will take court action—litigation—to stop the thievery or statutory theft that is about to take place. That is what is happening here.

The Minister raved on about his so-called consultation hui. He wrote out to all Māori, all over the country, and he says he obtained approval for what he is doing. But nothing in the reports of the consultation says that the identifiable beneficiaries approve of what he is now doing—nothing whatsoever. The Minister should be ashamed to come into this House and take funds that largely come from Ngāti Porou to Waiariki—Te Arawa mainly, and some from the north, I think; largely from three or four identifiable areas—and stand up as though he is doing something great for Māori. He is doing something that Pākehā would never condone. They would never condone the Labour-led Government taking funds out of the Public Trust and using them for all New Zealanders. But that is the same as what the Minister is doing. It is no wonder he was not ready to take his call earlier. He knows that he is doing the wrong thing.

The other thing about this measure is the Government’s patronising attitude or condescension. It says poor Māori do not know how to use their money properly, so it is going to take it from them. The Government is setting up a whole new corporation and says it will distribute that largesse, as though it is the Minister’s, to all and sundry, because Māori do not know how to handle their money. That essentially is what the Government and the Minister are saying. We say the Māori Trustee cannot do his job; actually, he has not done it. Although he has travelled a hang of a lot overseas in the last year, he has not done the basic tasks that are required of that trustee. But if the Māori Trustee cannot do his job, rather than this Government misappropriating these funds I say they should be handed back to where they belong. The Minister should consider doing that.

The Minister should reconsider what he is doing in distributing largesse to all and sundry. First of all that is not right, and, secondly, it is condescending to treat Māori as if they are of no wit and cannot handle their own affairs. But that is typical of a Labour Government, is it not—absolutely typical of a Labour Government. Labour Governments have been like that since mai rāno. They say: “Bring everything back to the centre; we know best.”

That Minister actually runs a department. It is called Te Puni Kōkiri.

He doesn’t run it; Leith does.

Horomia Hon Parekura Horomia Link to this

Well, right—OK, it has a chief executive, but this Minister is in charge of it. A colleague of mine, Gerry Brownlee, still does not know what that Minister does with his department. Actually, some days we do not know that either. Sometimes we do not know either—OK? And the Minister has the cheek to set up a new corporation in order to progress development. His department cannot even use the funds it has properly. Te Puni Kōkiri cannot even use the funds it has to do development properly, anyway.

As I say, this is typical, though, of a Labour-led Government. This is a good test—

And that is how good you were. You made him the spokesperson on Māori Affairs. Shame on the National Party—when you were there and Tau was there, putting down the spokesperson for Māori—

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Of course, that member is bringing you into the argument, and you held me up for doing that. So I wish you would do the same to him.

Robertson The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) Link to this

I was actually calling the member to order. But, please, will the member now continue.

Mark Ron Mark Link to this

As I said earlier, this Minister ought to be ashamed of himself. He is bringing in a bill in the last throes of a Labour-led Government—thank goodness for that—that in other circumstances, and if he had reorganised the trustee office properly, might have been acceptable. But in this case it is not. It is not acceptable because the Minister is stealing money from Peter and giving it to Paul, Matthew, and everybody, and he has no right to do that. He is setting up a Māori corporation, and we have done that before, I tell the Minister. We have done that before, and it did not work—it did not work, OK? The Government can use its own moneys. Where else do we take money from identified people and give it to somebody else?

I say to the Minister that he should concentrate on running Te Puni Kōkiri properly, because that department is pretty hopeless. It is pretty hopeless. And the other thing I say is that I will be very interested to see where the Māori Party puts its vote tonight, because there is no doubt that this measure is absolutely wrong. What this Government is doing is absolutely wrong. It is tantamount to another “foreshore and seabed”, and as I say I will be very interested to see where the Māori Party puts its vote.

Its coalition partner.

Yates Dianne Yates Link to this

And as for the New Zealand First members, I tell them that they need to read the report my colleague referred to arising from the inquiry that Winston Peters set up in 1991. There was no doubt in the minds of those reviewers as to whom these funds belonged to. They do not belong to all Māori, and why New Zealand First should be supporting this Government—who knows?

In closing, I ask the Minister, seriously, to withdraw this bill.

No!

Yates Dianne Yates Link to this

Well, of course it is only natural that some of his colleagues there would say “No!”, because they do not bother about who owns property. They are not worried about who owns property. These assets are identifiable. They are owned by certain people and families, these land blocks, and this Minister has no right—absolutely no right—to misappropriate these funds.

Henare Hon TAU HENARE (National) Link to this

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Oh, not again.

Robertson The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) Link to this

There is to be no comment at all during a point of order.

Paraone Pita Paraone Link to this

I have been booted out of this House on a number of occasions for interrupting on a point of order. I know that you have just ruled, Mr Assistant Speaker, but I suggest that Government members are accorded the same “privilege” that was accorded me on a number of occasions. My point of order is that during the Minister’s speech he motioned to me as if I was to ask a question. I therefore seek leave of the House to ask the Minister a question.

Robertson The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) Link to this

The House is the master of its own destiny, and the member is perfectly entitled to do that. The member has sought leave. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is objection.

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) Link to this

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. In 1921 the Government of the day created a position ostensibly to protect and enhance the interests of Māori clients and their resources. That position was the Māori Trustee. It was a position created by legislation to manage the adverse effects of fragmented multiple ownership of Māori land. Significantly, the office of the Māori Trustee was expected to provide fair, proper, and prudent administration and management of clients’ assets within the principles and obligations of trusteeship and agency.

Such a heavy investment in accountability and transparency was a logical expectation of the fact that the Māori Trustee was set up to take over the role of the Public Trustee. Yet 70 years after establishment, how disappointing it was to read in analysis by G V and S M Butterworth that “Neither the Public Trustee nor the Māori Trustee and his administration exercised their responsibilities in the best long-term interests of those Māori whose land and revenue was vested in the trustee.”

Who were the Butterworths?

Dr PITA SHARPLES Link to this

That is a good question. I repeat: “in the best long-term interests of those Māori.” Clearly, 1991 was a turning point year for the Māori Trustee. In that same year Ngāi Tahu made a number of allegations concerning the failure of the Crown’s appointed trustee to administer reserve lands properly. These allegations included failing to consult the owners, failing to act as a prudent trustee, failing to take action to amalgamate land titles and develop lands, and failing to prevent land from being taken for public works. The Ngāi Tahu report 1991 is mandatory reading for understanding how well the Māori Trustee meets the trustee’s statutory responsibilities—and they are sizable responsibilities.

The Māori Trust Office currently administers more than 2,200 properties and special trusts. It cares for more than 156,000 owners, and it manages some 115,000 owner accounts. So when we read through background reports that suggest that the best long-term interests of Māori have not been given due and proper accord, we have to wonder about this new bill.

The Butterworth report also referred to large capital expenditure with little return, problems surrounding the collection and distribution of rents, inadequate consultation with beneficial owners in respect of these matters, and other concerns. We remain unconvinced, when we fast forward to September 2007, and read that the Federation of Māori Authorities has said: “Currently as an administrator of Māori land, it is our view that any value added is limited.”

Set against this backdrop of concerns, and the longstanding issues and reviews that have taken place over the years, one would be expecting a miracle to bring about the changes required to accelerate Māori development. Such a transformation is not inconceivable. Indeed, Paul Morgan, the Chief Executive of the Federation of Māori Authorities, goes as far as to suggest there is significant potential and that this should be provided for in the legislation.

Indeed, as we know, there have been many and vast improvements and achievements over the years, which the Māori Trustee has helped to prosper. Sir Apirana Ngata, during his parliamentary term, drew on Māori Trust moneys to support the unemployed. The Māori Trust fund was a benefactor to support Māori into homes by using the funds as a second mortgage, or even by authorising loans to enable the purchase of furniture for new homeowners. The trade training schemes would never have been as successful as they were, had it not been for the hostels—

Mark Ron Mark Link to this

They were shut down.

Dr PITA SHARPLES Link to this

—which the Māori Trustee purchased to house apprentices—exactly—in both Auckland and Christchurch. The Māori Trustee made contributions to the Māori Purposes Fund Board to enable the publication of Māori literature, and it also played a large role in supporting Te Māori exhibition that showcased Māori art forms and taonga to the world.

Alongside of the then Māori Education Foundation the Māori Trustee also assisted in the establishment of the kōhanga reo movement, yet sadly much of this work has never been widely appreciated as the Māori Trustee was locked up and encased within the bureaucracy of the Māori Affairs department.

The ongoing issues of independence of the Māori Trustee from the Crown will plague the new organisation proposed in this bill, unless the Minister has the courage to invest in a strategic vision for Māori economic development. But here is the crunch. The legislation aims to transfer $35 million from the Māori Trustees general purposes fund to establish this new statutory corporation. This fund, according to the Charters, Sykes and Nikora review of 1991, is income derived from the beneficiaries and not the Māori Trustee. How this works is that the interest earned on the common fund—money held in trust available for loan—is credited to the general purposes fund, owned by the Māori Trustee. Effectively, the statute empowers the Māori Trustee to operate on beneficiaries’ incomes. If you like, it is comparable to a solicitor using the interest on his or her clients’ funds to run the solicitor’s business. So we have $35 million of Māori money being put alongside $40 million of Crown money to establish a stand-alone organisation. Even from the viewpoint of the quantity of the investment, this is an absolute investment in failure.

In 2001 the Māori Affairs Committee report on the Māori Trustee drew the attention of the Government to the ongoing issue about whether the funding received by the trustee was at an appropriate level for the trustee to fulfil his role. If the solution to that question was meant to be this bill, then it has got it badly wrong. The bill proposes the establishment of a new statutory corporation, Māori Business Aotearoa New Zealand, founded on money that the Charters, Sykes and Nikora review has proven to be in doubt. Even if the Māori Trustee has the right to donate moneys from the general purposes fund to this new incorporation, the tokenistic amount suggested by the Government merely confirms more of the same old handholding, paternalistic, patronising behaviour of a Government destined to perpetuate dependency.

I recall, as a member of the Māori Education Foundation, that the Government, in establishing that entity, provided a subsidy of 3:1. For every Māori dollar invested, the Government would match it with $3. That is the type of foresight we would have applauded in this bill, but instead we have insufficient funding to hope for success, and legislative bungling that continues the apron-strings approach to Treaty justice.

The proposal to establish Māori Business Aotearoa New Zealand is constrained also by the decision to have a Crown-appointed Māori Trustee in the key governance role, as well as in the management and implementation role. This is the classic behaviour of a Government that wants to continue benefiting from the puppeteer role, manipulating all the strings available to it to continue to wield total control. What we have in reality with this bill is a Government that seeks to get its hands on Māori moneys, the possibility of legal doubt being cast upon the validity of using beneficiary funds for establishing a new entity, and then the risk that the Crown will jeopardise any independent status through influencing the making of political appointments.

The Butterworth report concluded: “the Māori Trustee, like the Public Trustee before, had increasingly been used to serve the interests of others ahead of the beneficial owners of the land in his charge”. We support the view of the Federation of Māori Authorities, that Māori should have a say in the appointment of the Māori Trustee, not the Minister of Māori Affairs.

It is also doubtful whether a trustee appointed by the Government of the day will be able to challenge the Minister’s directives, to protect his or her clients’ interests. The conflict inherent in being an agent of the Crown and a trustee for Māori owners is simply too strong to achieve even the appearance of independence.

The Māori Party will not support this bill.

Turei METIRIA TUREI (Green) Link to this

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I want to take just a very short call on the Māori Trustee and Māori Development Amendment Bill. The Greens will be supporting it—

Turei METIRIA TUREI Link to this

Will be what?

We will be supporting it; I say thank you to Mr Henare.

We had very serious concerns about the legislation when the Government first raised it with us, and initially we refused to support it. We have spoken to a few other people about some of the issues and sought more advice on it. After looking at it a bit more closely, I am very firmly of the view that we need to crack this open and look at it. I agree that there is a serious issue here about the misuse of Māori Trustee money. I want to see where the levers are, what is going on with this legislation, and what the Government is intending to do.

I think that the National Party in particular, with the badgering it is doing, is not really engaged in a practical process. If Mr Henare had wanted to provide me with further information about National’s position on the bill he was always open to do that, but badgering me on the night of the vote is, of course, very unhelpful. We would like to see what is going on with it. I agree that there are really serious concerns, and we make no promises to the Government or to anybody else about what our future vote on this legislation will be.

There are members in this Parliament who have a great deal of historical knowledge about the Māori Trustee and its purposes, and about the things that have happened in the past. What is not well known is the purpose of the Māori Trustee, what it does, and how it operates in the general public view and amongst Māori, as well. This bill will give us a chance to crack the trustee open, have a good look, and make sure it comes under public scrutiny, because if there are dodgy things going on with both the legislation and some of the other practices that this new development body might want to undertake, then we will be able to find that out, expose it, and bring legislation down in the future.

But at this stage I am very keen to look at what this legislation does, and to expose it to the transparent view of the public, particularly of Māori, who have the closest association. If, in the end, it turns out that this is wrong and bad legislation—bad for Māori, a misuse of money, a misappropriation of property—then the Greens will not support it. But until we are clear and sure of that, we are happy to support the bill at least going to the select committee. Thank you.

Paraone PITA PARAONE (NZ First) Link to this

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā anō tātou o te Whare nei.

Firstly, can I say that I take part in the first reading of this bill with some mixed feelings, in the sense that it was not too long ago that I actually worked in the office of the Māori Trustee, ending my term of employment with that office as the regional operations manager in Whangarei. In listening to the debate so far, I empathise with the staff of the Māori Trust Office if they are listening to this debate. In the former Department of Maori Affairs when the services of that department were devolved, there was a lot of anxiety amongst staff. I am sure that if Māori Trust Office staff are listening to this debate tonight their anxiety will certainly be heightened, particularly by some of the comments that have been made. But, having said that, I suppose I do declare my vested interest in this particular bill because of my being a former staff member.

I cannot continue without making some reference to the fact that the reading of this bill was commenced by the Minster of Finance. He said in his opening remarks that this was a very, very important bill for the Minister of Māori Affairs, and I was somewhat surprised that that Minister did not take the first call. However, he did redeem himself by taking part when he did.

I will reiterate some of the work that the Māori Trustee actually does. First of all, the position is a corporation sole created by the enactment of the Maori Trustee Act 1953 and its role is to help manage Māori land. It is independent of the Crown but is subject to controls similar to those applying to Government departments. It reports annually to Parliament, it has been in existence since 1921, and it is now governed by the Maori Trustee Act 1953. The Māori Trustee is responsible for acting either as a trustee or an agent for owners of Māori land, usually in leasing that land, collecting and paying rent and other income to owners, investing trust moneys, keeping landowners informed about how their land is managed, and also looking after unclaimed moneys. As a consequence of that duty, from time to time a list of unclaimed moneys is regularly published for distribution to organisations around the country. But the Māori Trustee also has the task of keeping landowners informed about how their land is managed and about the investment of trust moneys.

I have to ask myself, with this bill, what new responsibilities will the Māori Trustee have? Can the intent of this bill not be implemented by way of any form of legislation other than separate legislation, whereby this bill is calling for the separate establishment of an organisation called Māori Business Aotearoa New Zealand? If we look at the acronym, it is MBANZ; I just wonder whether it should be “rubber bands”. I ask this question: why are we doing this? In terms of those who have already contributed to this debate and criticised the Minister, I must say that I would have to side with the Minister, as his intent is to look at the economic development of Māori.

Paraone PITA PARAONE Link to this

Can’t even do that properly.

Well, that is why we ought to be supporting any legislation that does that for Māori. The big question surrounding this legislation that has been raised by a number of speakers tonight concerns the use of the $35 million that is currently in the general purposes fund. I know that the Minister, through his department, has had a number of consultation huis around the country—

Paraone PITA PARAONE Link to this

Who with?

—with various Māori organisations and some beneficiaries. But I have it on good authority—[ Interruption]

Robertson The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) Link to this

Can I just advise members on both my left and right that the rules permitting interjections are predicated on the assumption that the person being interjected against has the call. There are members on my right and my left who do not have the call and, therefore, are not permitted to interject against each other.

Paraone PITA PARAONE Link to this

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As a point of clarification, my interjections were to comments that were made by the speaker, not by another member of the House. I just want to clear that up.

Robertson The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) Link to this

I thank the member, but the reality is that it has been going on all night.

Reference has been made to the sum of $35 million. At the present time I understand that that money is held in the general purposes fund of the Māori Trust Office. The big question is who actually owns that money. Although most of it is probably unclaimed moneys, at the end of the day I believe that those still belong to the beneficiaries—whoever they might be and wherever they might be—or to their estates. However, as I alluded to earlier on, a number of consultation huis were held around the country. I am given to understand that no reference was made to the intended use of this money by the new organisation, so I am not quite sure whether, in fact, Māori beneficiaries are aware of this. This is one of the reasons why New Zealand First will certainly be supporting this bill being referred to a select committee. We have always maintained that the select committee process gives the people of New Zealand the opportunity to have their say on legislation. I believe we will certainly hear from those who are affected by this bill, and we will hear what their thoughts are on the use of this funding.

The development of an old idea was what one speaker referred to earlier, and he was making reference to a Māori bank. Perhaps this could be seen as a Māori bank, but at the end of the day it can only be established at the behest of the Māori people of New Zealand. If they do not support it, then what is the point of having something like this?

Another question I would like to ask is why are we having a new entity? Why are we establishing an organisation, a group, that is alleged to be independent? I ask myself how independence can be had if the board in its make-up and the chairman—in this case, the Māori Trustee—will all be Crown-appointed. I know that some members of the House have strong feelings about this and, again, I think that the select committee process will allow those who will be affected by it to express their views. And I ask this final question: why can legislative changes not be implemented outside the scope of this bill in order to achieve the aim that I am sure all members of this House want for New Zealand, let alone for the Māori people?

In conclusion, I reiterate the stance that New Zealand First will be taking on this bill. We will certainly be supporting it going to a select committee. Kia ora.

Ririnui Hon MITA RIRINUI (Minister of State) Link to this

Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. I take the opportunity to take a brief call in support of this bill, which is aptly titled the Māori Trustee and Māori Development Amendment Bill. I also look forward to the bill being directed to the Māori Affairs Committee, because that will provide the opportunity for public submissions on the bill itself. I think that is important at this stage, because a lot of the comments I have heard made in this House by earlier speakers give me a feeling that they have not bothered to read this bill, they have not bothered to take note of the number of consultation hui around the country, and that they are simply just out of touch with what is happening in Māoridom in terms of Māori business and economic development.

I would also make the comment that I feel a number of contradictions were made by earlier speakers who, on the one hand, are very, very knowledgable in terms of the history of the establishment of the Māori Trustee and of the contributions the Māori Trustee has made to Māori social and economic development over a number of years, but at the same time they have said in this House that they will not support this bill. I get the feeling that some people will support something when they are in receipt of the benefits, but when it comes to a benefit that they themselves do not have the intellectual grunt to take advantage of, they are totally opposed to it.

Māori economic development is the way into the future for Māori. People cannot stand in this House and say that they want Māori to be independent, and at the same time, in their lifetime, they have bled the Māori Trustee dry when it comes to a benefit that would elevate the status of all Māori. They are totally opposed to it. But I will give them one thing: they do know their history, but they have very selective memories when it comes to recalling it.

I want to speak a bit more about the consultation hui that were undertaken around the country. There is an assumption in this House that Māori who attend these types of consultation hui have no interest in the unclaimed moneys in the Māori Trustee. These are unclaimed moneys, and they have been held in trust for beneficiaries, in the hope they would come forward one day and claim them. That makes a lot of sense, surely. So why are those members so opposed to that?

I know of a number of people who did attend the consultation hui and wanted to know a number of things. Firstly, they wanted to know why the functions of the Māori Trustee have been incorporated into Te Puni Kōkiri, and it has been difficult to understand. They do support the Māori Trustee being a stand-alone organisation, with a wide range of services being provided to Māori, and not just holding money for the sake of holding it, because the only ones who are benefiting from that money being held in the general purposes fund are the banks; they are the only ones. Māori are getting no benefit from that. Why are they so concerned with the interests of the banks and not the interests of Māori? Listening to the debate in this House tonight, it does not make a lot of sense.

The people from my particular area in the Bay of Plenty who went to the hui want to see an enhancement of the acceleration of Māori economic development and they see the Māori Trustee playing an important role in that. They are not saying that funds should be set aside. They are saying that the Māori Trustee should play an active role. If it has been there since 1921, and it has been accumulating unclaimed moneys since that time, it needs to be set free. It needs to be utilised for the benefit of Māori going into the future.

Ririnui Hon MITA RIRINUI Link to this

It needs to go back to the areas it came from.

I listened to the Hon Georgina te Heuheu making her comments. Maybe she should go and have a good read of the bill. Maybe she should go and learn a bit from her people, because a lot of the moneys that are unclaimed come from the Ngāti Tūwharetoa area. Nobody knows why that is, but there is certainly not a lot—

Ririnui Hon MITA RIRINUI Link to this

Why don’t you leave it alone then?

Nobody knows where these people are, and that is why the money is held there. Rather than letting the banks keep making money out of Māori interests, we should let the Māori people themselves enjoy those benefits.

I heard the Hon Tau Henare, a former short-term Minister of Māori Affairs, make a number of comments about this particular bill. I was a regional senior manager for Te Puni Kōkiri at the time he was Minister and I do not recall anything passing over my desk from him suggesting any way forward for Māori economic development. In fact, I saw the money going the other way, back into the Crown bank account. People have very selective memories, as I said earlier on.

I did say that my call would be a very short one. I am looking forward to sitting down in the select committee and listening to what the people have to say about the utilisation of these unclaimed moneys. Unclaimed moneys—they do have this title, even though they have been held in a general purposes fund. Georgina te Heuheu said there is a list of beneficiaries. In fact, there is not. If there were, the Māori Trustee would have the legal responsibility to ensure those beneficiaries received a return from the Māori Trustee. These moneys are unclaimed and have accumulated interest. The suggestion that the intention is to misappropriate those moneys is totally ludicrous. This money is going towards Māori development, and what is wrong with that? Why is National opposed to that? Surely every Māori in this House—although entitled to ask questions about the technical aspects of this bill—supports Māori moving forward, even if there are a couple of members who cannot bring themselves to support this bill. Once again I say I am looking forward to the select committee process, to hearing from Māori from all around the country, and to convincing those two members that this is good for Māori. Kia ora.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) Link to this

I listened very carefully to what the New Zealand First member Pita Paraone said about the Māori Trustee and Māori Development Amendment Bill, because much of what he said made a lot of sense. The primary issue, as I understand it from what he said, is that there is a need to take a good look at the office of the Māori Trustee. I do not disagree with him, at all, for reasons I will explain in the course of this speech. When one goes through the history of the Māori Trustee, one sees there are serious issues that need to be addressed.

The point that makes this bill unacceptable to the National Party is Part 2 and the way in which the $35 million, which has been referred to in debate, is being filched from the general purposes fund and put into this new body to be used for general Māori development. I think it is one of those issues where although one would normally support a bill to the first reading so it can be properly addressed in the select committee, one cannot do it here because the bill is odious in respect of Part 2.

As I said, some history is required. I noted in Dr Sharples’ speech that the genesis for him was in 1921 with the creation of the office of the Māori Trustee. Let me go back to 1882 and the passage of the then Native Reserves Act of 1882, which provided for the vesting of Crown administered Māori reserves in the Public Trustee. The Public Trustee was the first trustee who was appointed. The trustee had power to lease reserves and collect and distribute the resulting rents to beneficial owners after deducting expenses. The board of the Public Trust Office was extended by the appointment of two Māori trustees. My reading of the history of the Public Trustee’s involvement indicates that it was all pretty unsatisfactory. The board failed to meet regularly and did not provide an opportunity for its Māori members to represent Māori interests. In the early 20th century the majority of the accounts vested in the Public Trustee came under four principal Acts: the Native Reserves Act of 1882, as I said a few minutes ago; the Westland and Nelson Native Reserves Act of 1887; the West Coast Settlement Reserves Act of 1892; and section 185 of the Native Land Act of 1909. Because of the concerns on the part of Māori owners at the administration of their reserves by the Public Trustee, the whole issue was looked at in 1913. There was a commission into the Public Trust Office that recommended that Māori reserves and their administration be vested in an independent body. That is how the Māori Trustee was born after the First World War in 1920.

Then in 1932 an amendment Act saw the amalgamation of the office with the department itself, and under the 1932 Act the position of trustee was combined with the position of under-secretary of the department. It seems that following that time there was the elimination of all administrative signposts of independence and a gradual dissipation of the pool of expertise in the office. From the point of view of the Māori beneficiaries the situation was very unsatisfactory. As Butterworth—to whom Dr Sharples referred—said, there was little room left “for initiative or imagination and its ultimate effect was to turn the Native Trustee into a bureaucratic arm of the Department rather than a prudential financial institution and agent of his beneficiaries.” So there is no doubt that there have been concerns about the way in which the office of the Māori Trustee and its predecessor, the Public Trustee, have administered these funds for over 100 years and there are some serious issues that need to be addressed.

I know that Mr Paraone correctly referred to the summary of the role of the Māori Trustee from Te Puni Kōkiri’s website. He really emphasised the key points, and I want to emphasise them as well. The Māori Trustee is independent of the Crown; accountable to landowners and the Māori Land Court; and, as Mr Paraone said, is responsible for acting either as a trustee or as an agent for the owners of land, for collecting and paying rent and other income to owners, and for investing trust moneys. The point that needs to be emphasised time and time again is that the Māori Trustee is operating an important prudential and trustee function. He or she is not part of the Crown or subordinate to the Crown in any way whatsoever. Then one has to look at the Maori Trustee Act of 1953. Mr Paraone correctly identified that in section 23 there are a number of accounts within the Māori Trustee’s account. There is the special investment account; the common fund, which Mr Ririnui referred to; and the general purposes fund. When one looks at section 32, one sees that there are special purposes for which funds or moneys in the general purposes fund may be used, and they are set out there—for example, section 32(1)(a) states: “the trustee may advance money for the benefit of Maoris or descendants of Maoris upon such terms as to repayment as he sees fit; and upon such security (if any) as he sees fit”. Given the trustee nature of it, it is not for the benefit of Māori generally but for the Māori beneficiaries. That is the way those sections have to be read. Let us face it: the Māori Trustee is a trustee who has to look out for, in a prudential way and in accordance with the Maori Trustee Act, the interests of the beneficiaries.

So what does this bill do? I would be prepared to contemplate supporting Part 1, at least to a select committee, but Part 2 renders the bill totally unacceptable. We say that the Government needs to go back and look at it again. Part 2 establishes a new organisation called Māori Business Aotearoa New Zealand. Its functions are referred to in new section 55, inserted by clause 15. There can be no objection to setting up a body such as this to further the economic development of Māori; it is the way it is done in new section 59 that immediately makes this legislation unacceptable. The objectionable section that we place some reliance on, section 59(2), provides that the Māori Trustee must transfer, as a contribution to the fund of this new organisation, Māori Business Aotearoa New Zealand, the sum of $35 million from the general purposes fund. We say that that is an unauthorised appropriation of $35 million, which properly belongs to the beneficiaries of the Māori Trustee. These funds are not available—or should not be available—to be filched by the Government. They belong to the beneficiaries, and indeed they and no other persons are the ones who should be consulted. Sending out 49,000 letters in a general kind of way, as the Associate Minister referred to in his speech, is unacceptable.

A very important question was asked by the Hon Georgina te Heuheu when she asked what the response of New Zealanders would be if the Public Trustee’s accounts were raided to apply funds for the benefit of all New Zealanders. One simply cannot do that.

Mapp Dr Wayne Mapp Link to this

That’s a very good analogy.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON Link to this

Thank you, Dr Mapp. It is a good analogy. The point is that you cannot do it—and by “you” I am not meaning you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am using “you” in the sense of “one cannot do it”, because I would not contravene the Standing Orders by referring to you in person.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON Link to this

The royal “one”.

The royal “one.” So that is the objection of the National Party. This bill is badly drafted. Part 2 is odious. It cannot be referred to a select committee and tidied up, because there is nothing to tidy up. It is one of those situations where the bill should be rejected at the first reading, because what we have here is a misappropriation of $35 million out of the general purposes fund.

Let me conclude by emphasising that the bill raises some important questions. I for one, having gone through the Maori Trustee Act of 1953 and looked at the history of the Māori Trustee, think there are some very important questions that need to be addressed, particularly concerning strengthening the independence of the Māori Trustee, separating the Māori Trustee from Te Puni Kōkiri, and so on. Those sorts of issues are worthy of consideration, but Part 2 is objectionable.

Jones Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Building and Construction) Link to this

Kia ora anō tātou. E te māngai o te Whare, i te tuatahi, me mihi atu au ki te uri o Tūwharetoa kua hou mai ki roto i tō tātou Whare Pāremata i tēnei rangi. Ahakoa nā tana iwi ia i hara mai, nā tana tuakana a Georgina te Heuheu ia i tautoko i tana hākari, me tāpiri e ahau ēnei kupu torutoru ōku, hei whakanui i a ia i te aroaro tana whānau i te nui o te hōnore kua whakawhiwhia ki a ia i tēnei rā. Kia ora.

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[Greetings to us once again. In the first instance, Mr Assistant Speaker, I should extend a greeting to the relative of Tūwharetoa who entered Parliament today. Even though it was her people who brought her here, it was Georgina te Heuheu, her peer, who endorsed her at the feast for her; I should add these few words of mine to magnify her in the presence of her family, because of the great honour that was bestowed upon her today. Thank you.]

Āpōpō, māku anō wāku e hakamāori, e hakapākehā engari, e pai ana. Tēnā anō tātou katoa e te Whare.

[Tomorrow I will translate what I say in Māori to English, but it is fine. Salutations to us all once again in the House.]

This bill, the Māori Trustee and Māori Development Amendment Bill, will pass despite the actions of Dr Pita Sharples of the Māori Party in not conveying to this hardworking, industrious, very popular Minister to my right—the Hon Parekura Horomia—that they were withdrawing their support for this overdue example of institutional reform. This particular bill will ensure that the resources of the fund called the Māori Trustee are available to fulfil a modern purpose and able to be used to drive Māori into the future. Māori have a bright future, but we must not allow future opportunities to be hobbled by legislation that is rooted in the colonial past, and for those reasons it is a very, very sad but predictable act that we have seen today from Dr Sharples.

It is fair enough that the Hon Tau Henare should oppose this bill; he was born to oppose, although he tried incessantly for the period of time he was the Minister. I have to confess he did some innovative things in his time, although I cannot recollect one of them while I am on my feet.

Jones Hon SHANE JONES Link to this

Didn’t I put you on Poutama?

That reminds me—this bill will allow for any surplus funds in funds such as the Poutama Māori Business Trust or even the Crown Forestry Rental Trust to find a home in the future. That is why this bill provides an opportunity for future expansion. But, of course, all that lies in the future with the inevitable settlement of the claims, which is why this is a brilliant vessel that has been modernised, and through using the powers of this House, the sovereignty of the House, we are able to effect this overdue exercise in modernisation. [ Interruption] Mr Wayne Mapp seeks a call.

This bill simply picks up on the work that earlier reviewers wrote about, wasting time and ink, and, as a consequence of Parekura Horomia’s extremely expansive view into the future, and a willingness to go to Ngā Hau e Whā, not a single tribe was overlooked by the Minister of Māori Affairs as he has sought to drag the Māori Trustee into the modern world. Tēnā koe, e te Minita. Tō kaha ki te whakahau i tēnei kaupapa mō te kaitiaki Māori pupuri i ngā toenga whenua.

[Well done, Minister. You have imposed your will very strongly on this proposal relating to the Māori Trustee and Māori Development Amendment Bill.]

So all power to the Minister to care for the Māori Trustee, modernise it, and ensure that these increasingly fragmented pieces of land and ever increasingly smaller slivers of money can be brought together, as we say in the Māori language, whakatōpū, consolidated, rationalised, and brought together to fulfil a very strong purpose. Who knows? I have no doubt, as perhaps Mr Henare and others fear, it will grow and move away from the past when Māori were not able to exercise the right levels of accountability over this institution. This fund will inevitably grow through good stewardship, which will reflect the quality of the decisions that the Minister makes.

I commend this bill. Where it is capable of being refined, I have no doubt that the fine minds of the select committee will effect that purpose. Kia ora tātou.

Mapp Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) Link to this

We certainly heard a confession tonight, did we not. It was that the revised superior model Māori Trustee that the previous speaker referred to will be receiving funds from the Crown Forestry Rental Trust. I want to examine the implications of that particular statement because it is fundamental to the reasons why National is opposed to this bill.

Earlier today Louisa Wall of Tūwharetoa was inducted into this House. Much of the funds in the Crown Forestry Rental Trust actually belong to Tūwharetoa. So what does the Minister propose? He is going to put it into a general fund to benefit all Māori. What is that? That is expropriation. I am not surprised that many members of the Labour Party would think to expropriate assets that clearly belong to a particular group of people and then spend them for the general benefit. But I must say I am surprised that Mr Shane Jones, with his understanding of private property rights and the rights that people accrue to property, would want to do that. He was the only member today who confessed to the Government’s real intent here, and I think that should make Māori people very concerned about the intentions of this Government.

Shane Jones said that the bill would be passed into law. I have a prediction to make for members on the other side of the House: this bill will not be passed into law. Yes, it will go to a select committee, but is that select committee going to report back in the next couple of months? Will there be a passage into law by, say, July or August or September of this year? Unless the Government is going to shove it through with no consultation, the answer is no. Therefore, I predict that this bill will never pass into law.

I turn to this issue: the whole concept of the Māori Trustee, referred to by members across the House, is a relic of paternalism. The whole idea that the Māori Trustee can get a general fund of $35 million, essentially expropriated from beneficiaries, to go into general causes absolutely reflects the paternalistic nature of the Māori Trustee as it was originally enacted. I know members will say “Ah, but this is the modern trustee with modern purposes reflecting the needs of a modern community.” If that is so, why is the Government passing a law that would effectively continue a paternalistic expropriation approach to Māori assets? When we on this side of the House say it is thievery the other side proclaims shock and horror that we would use such a term, but we are using it because it means that the property of particular people is transferred to the general class of people at large. That is why we say thievery. Taking the property of an individual or group of individuals and transferring it to other people without their consent or will is not the modern way.

Quite clearly, the role of the Māori Trustee needs to be reformed. There has been an opportunity over the last 8 years for this Government to have done that very thing—basically to get back to the fundamental principles and work out why we have the Māori Trustee and what modern purpose it forms. How does something that essentially originates out of paternalism fit the modern and contemporary world, particularly when so many iwi are getting substantial settlements and there is an opportunity to look at those assets and ask who they really belong to? Even if we cannot identify individuals, we certainly can identify iwi groups. Surely in an age of modern settlements it would be appropriate to return those assets to those large iwi groupings that are now very definitely empowered to benefit their own members. That would be a much more sensible way. We could have respected the approach of the Government if it had done that.

Jones Hon Shane Jones Link to this

Denese Hēnare agrees with this.

Jones Hon Shane Jones Link to this

The member is not supposed to do so, but I heard him refer to members of my family. I know full well that members of my family want iwi, not Government agencies, to be empowered. I know full well that when my wife reviewed the Māori Trustee back in the 1980s that was exactly the intent she had in mind. Frankly, it is inappropriate to bring family members into the debate, and I would have expected Mr Shane Jones to know better if he has greater aspirations.

I draw members’ attention to this point: 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, 8 years into the Government’s term, which simply perpetuates paternalism. It simply transfers assets that could have been transferred to iwi back into a centralised approach.

The power of modernisation. A modern Minister!

Hughes Hon Darren Hughes Link to this

I hear the Minister say it is a modern approach. I say it is a paternalistic approach and, frankly, the Minister, of all people, should know better than that because of his particular experiences dealing with assets that belong to particular iwi. I ask whether the Minister has learnt nothing based on his commercial experience, which members on that side of the House are always saying he brings to their side. All I can say, based on the speech we heard him give before, is that he has apparently learnt very little at all. I am not surprised that Louisa Wall will be breathing down his neck and the necks of his other colleagues, because they need her to sharpen up their act.

Gone beyond Muldoonism.

Jones Hon Shane Jones Link to this

Yes, that is exactly the point, Mr Minister. We have gone beyond Muldoonism. National believes that assets that belong to beneficiaries, or to large groups of beneficiaries, should be returned to those people. This is not an opportunity to expand on the paternalistic approach that this Government has.

They are deceased!