11. Hon TAU HENARE (National) Link to this
to the Minister of Maori Affairs
Does the Maori Trustee and Maori Development Amendment Bill seek to transfer $35 million of beneficiary moneys from funds for which the Māori Trustee is responsible to a new Māori business development fund?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs) Link to this
No. Funds held in trust by the Māori Trustee—unclaimed money, and other funds owned by beneficiaries—will not be transferred to the Māori business development fund set up by the bill.
Why, then, in the Minister’s speech to the House in the first reading of the bill, did he state that $35 million from the common fund from the Māori Trustee would be used to set up, to establish, this new entity?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA Link to this
What I did say was to point out where the $35 million was coming from: the general purposes fund. The Crown Law Office has advised that the general purposes fund is owned by the Māori Trustee and that no other person has a claim over it. The general purposes fund has accumulated over many, many years of the business activities of the Māori Trustee. No money held in trust for beneficiaries, including unclaimed moneys, will be transferred to the new entity.
Moana MackeyHon PAREKURA HOROMIA Link to this
The new entity Māori Business Aotearoa New Zealand will accelerate Māori development by bringing together resources and expertise from across a range of existing functions and organisations, including, for example, supporting opportunities for Māori economic growth. Other activities referred to in the bill include providing business advisory and mentoring services, and providing networking and sector development services.
Madam SPEAKER[ Interruption] Very shortly. Why were Māori who attended the consultation hui not told that Labour intended to pilfer $35 million of beneficiary money and spend it on people who are not beneficiaries?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA Link to this
Māori were told several facts as the hui were held around the country. During the consultation on the changes to the Māori Trustee, participants wanted the Māori Trustee to take a leadership role in Māori development. This feedback has resulted in work that was already under way being progressed through the bill. Let me explain it again: the general purposes fund is the fund accumulated from interest rates. The Māori Trustee has the responsibility for paying out at 3 percent, 4 percent, and 5 percent, and the remainder is accumulating. Following the introduction of the bill, information about the bill—including the new economic development entity—was sent to approximately 49,000 stakeholders.
Is not the real reason for this new fund an effort to set up an election-year slush fund to be administered by the Minister’s personal appointees, free from Public Service scrutiny and neutrality, who will dole out over $10 million in every Māori electorate seat in the country in a vain attempt to keep Māori tied to Labour’s purse strings, rather than encouraging them to take control of their own future and become independent of this Government’s handouts?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA Link to this
I am perplexed to understand why that member over there does not want to join in encouraging positive advancement for Māori. At the end of the day that is what this is about. There have been Ministers of Māori Affairs before this time who did nothing—who did nothing. That fund has $60 million sitting in it, and it is from interest rates. If that member understands the multiplicity and the fragmentation of our ownership, then he will see that this is a very, very good, positive idea.
Has the Minister contacted those beneficiaries that he is about to pilfer $35 million from; if not, when—
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Do I need to draw your attention to what has just been said by the member?
Yes, I think the member does. I cannot hear anything that is happening in the House at the moment, and I assume that none of the other members want to hear either the questions or the answers, given the level of noise.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
Madam Speaker, I would hate to suggest that I am better attuned to that member than you are, but he very clearly made an unparliamentary suggestion about the Minister.
Gerry BrownleeMadam Speaker, the term that was used by the Hon Tau Henare was “pilfer”. He was asking the Minister whether he would engage in this exercise of pilfering money from beneficiaries. I think that “pilfer” is probably the wrong word, but, can I can ask, Madam Speaker, whether you would accept that he should be asking whether the Minister is appropriating from beneficiaries money that would otherwise belong to them.
No. I think I will, first of all, take part of the member’s helpful suggestion. The Hon Tau Henare should withdraw the term he used, apologise, and then rephrase his question.
I withdraw and apologise. Has the Minister contacted the beneficiaries of the $35 million and asked them for their view on the fact that $35 million of their money is being misappropriated?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA Link to this
I am not sure what is wrong with this member. It is a simple organisation. There are two separate funds, the general purposes fund and the common fund, and he should get it through his thick skull—
Would the Minister please be seated. Is there a point of order? [ Interruption] No, the member has withdrawn his point of order. Have we heard the end of the answer? [ Interruption] Yes, we have.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Is this the same fund, owned by 125,000 beneficiaries, that was imperilled by the Māori Trustee in the Quality Inn deal in 1991, which the previous National Government then supported against its then Minister of Māori Affairs and had him sacked, and which concept was refloated in 1999 by the then Minister of Māori Affairs, one Tau Henare?