Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs) : Tēnā koe. Ka nui te mihi ki a koe e te Kaiwhakahaere o te Whare. Greetings to you. I move, That the Waka Umanga (Māori Corporations) Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Māori Affairs Committee and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, despite Standing Orders 192, 195(1)(b), and 195(1)(c).]

The Waka Umanga (Māori Corporations) Bill provides for the establishment of a new, optional, legal entity tailored to meet the needs of iwi, hapū, and Māori associations that manage communal assets. The bill is underpinned by the Government’s Māori affairs policy of supporting the realisation of Māori potential, and is the result of the consideration by this Government of issues and opportunities in the area of Māori governance and tribal representation.

The bill recognises the right of Māori collectives to develop their own structures to suit their cultural and governance needs, to determine their own mandate and representation, and to do so through an independent process. It is also about recognising that good governance is a key enabler of effective organisations. Good governance leads to sustainable cultural, economic, and social success and to an enhanced contribution by Māori to the future of Aotearoa New Zealand. The New Zealand Law Commission initially investigated these ideas in the context of the Treaty settlement process, identifying a pressing need to provide a structure for the successful receipt of Treaty settlements and to facilitate the efficient administration of community-owned assets.

This bill seeks to address a number of problems that arise out of a number of common and defining experiences for Māori collectives within the current environment. First, there is a lack of cohesion between the form and function of existing legal frameworks and the unique characteristics that shape Māori collectives. Although Māori have adapted to using legal forms such as trusts and incorporated societies, often these structures do not enable them to operate in the most efficient and transparent way possible. In some cases unwieldy structures are being developed to accommodate the many activities of the group, resulting in the duplication of limited resources. Māori collectives are increasingly pursuing multiple, diverse objectives. These range from managing Treaty settlements and fisheries assets, retaining and protecting their tribal land, to operating commercial entities and providing important community services. It becomes imperative for these collectives to establish a structure that can incorporate commercial and non-commercial activities so that the different objectives of those activities can be managed appropriately.

Second, historical Treaty settlements will continue to be a key driver for the establishment of representative organisations in the immediate future, although they are not the sole focus for those entities. Cultural, commercial, and other activities are of equal importance. Third, tribal resources and assets are owned by members of the tribal group community. Representative entities have an ongoing obligation to manage those assets for the benefit of both current and future members in perpetuity. Fourth, members of iwi and hapū cannot opt out of their tribal membership in the same way individual shareholders can. Therefore, the rights and interests of members need to be protected.

There is a clear need for a mechanism to assist Māori collectives in managing their communal assets in order to achieve greater certainty for Māori, to assist the Crown and third parties to leverage off existing successes and focus on forward development and growth, and to support cultural identity and positive contributions to national identity. This legislation supports these objectives.

As I have mentioned, the bill provides a new voluntary legal entity for iwi, hapū, and non-tribal Māori associations that hold communal assets. It provides democratic and transparent processes for the formation of a waka umanga, with an emphasis on an open and early dialogue with prospective members. The bill enables those using the waka umanga model to create a structure that represents both their overarching tribal body and its constituent parts—hapū, marae, or rohe. The model can be developed to reflect traditional tribal structures. Tribal groups can seek recognition as the legitimate representative of that group for matters outlined in their charter, in effect creating a mechanism for tribal groups to confirm their mandate and gain legitimacy.

The bill provides that the Government must act in accordance with the interests of members—current and future—whilst allowing waka umanga the flexibility to shape themselves through their charter. Existing entities such as Māori trust boards, charitable trusts, and incorporated societies can transition to the waka umanga model if they wish. The bill provides that internal dispute resolution is mandatory, with an emphasis on process and early resolution. A secretariat will be set up under the bill to assist waka umanga in complying with the Act, and to provide guidance and support where needed through the registration process and beyond.

Extensive consultation with Māori and other key stakeholders has been undertaken by Te Puni Kōkiri and the Law Commission since 2004, including in late 2006 concerning the overarching waka umanga proposal and in June-July 2007 on the detail of the bill itself. I am confident that the views expressed by Māori have been heard and taken into account. Yes, some iwi are already well established and comfortable within their existing structures—like Ngāi Tahu, for example—but many are not and are currently bending into a structure that does not meet their particular needs. It is these groups that I envisage will see benefit in a model that has been designed for them.

In summary, this innovative legislation is a purpose-built governance model, underpinned by the principles of cultural match, flexibility, and good governance standards. It is about creating certainty for iwi and hapū and for those third parties that deal with them—including the Crown. With the advent of technology, globalisation, and digitalisation it is clear that Māori need to adapt in order to remain relevant in the ever-changing world. To do that, they need to be supported by good governance structures and practices.

The Government has placed much emphasis on economic transformation as one of its key goals for this term of office, and especially for Māori. I believe that the Waka Umanga (Māori Corporations) Bill is a prime example of how the Government is providing and supporting Māori leadership in this area. I believe that the bill will provide a very positive step forward for Māori governance. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) : The public may well wonder why it is that at 10.30 tonight, under urgency, until midnight, this House is debating a range of bills, one of which is the Waka Umanga (Māori Corporations) Bill, which is before us now, when no Māori leader that I know of and no tribe that I know of asked for this legislation, when the entities that it sets up are voluntary in any event, and when there are far more pressing matters that relate to Māori development than the setting up of yet another governance entity, which this Government seems determined to press on to Māori. I do not doubt the sincerity of the Minister’s speech but, really, there are far more pressing things that he should be addressing his mind to after 8 years in Government. Some of the things that are preventing Māori from moving forward have nothing to do with the kind of thing that is in this bill.

We could go into urgency to address the appalling rate of child abuse that goes on in many of our communities, but we will not. We could go into urgency to address the educational failure that is inherent in some Māori communities, but we will not do that. Instead, we will debate a bill about the setting up of entities that are voluntary and whose value is untested and debatable; a bill that has the potential to create more problems than it solves and more tension within tribes than tribes need at this particular time in their development. Suffice it to say, for those reasons, and for other reasons, National does not support this bill.

Māori did not seek this legislation. There is no demand for it from Māori. The initiative is one that was developed solely in Wellington, and now it seeks to be imposed on Māori tribes. It is voluntary, so it may never come to pass. Māori do not have to pick it up, so one wonders why the Minister would waste his time introducing it. Māori in the 21st century are quite capable of developing their own entities and managing their own affairs. In fact, there are a number of increasingly high-profile Māori entities in New Zealand now, which bears testament to the fact that Māori are capable of managing their own affairs. They do not need a Labour-led Government to, yet again, impose on them an entity that, as I said, is debatable in its value.

The Waka Umanga (Māori Corporations) Bill, as the Minister has outlined, makes provision for the establishment of two types of entities. It makes provision for their formation and their registration, for accountability back to their stakeholders or beneficiaries, and for the Māori Land Court to oversee all. There in itself is a huge problem. Sitting overall is the Māori Land Court, with whom Māori have had not the best of relationships over the decades, and that court now seems to be so much the decider of Māori affairs that one would think we have not moved out of the 19th century. But, of course, oftentimes with this Government one gets that feeling anyway.

Although the Minister has gone into some detail in relation to the bill, probably to enhance his own understanding, nothing he has said gives any confidence that the purposes, as set out, will be achieved, particularly the purpose designed to give legal certainty and stability to Māori governance entities, because this bill has the ring of an Act that was passed by the Labour Government of the 1980s—the Runanga Iwi Act. That, I think, was also passed under urgency, against the wishes of Māori. Nobody had asked for that either, but that Government determinedly pushed it through and imposed it on Māori, and, of course, it came to an end when the National Government in 1990 sensibly repealed it. There is a bit of déjà vu here, and the Labour Government should think about that. Again, it finds it difficult even to contemplate that Māori are capable of managing their own affairs.

I want to take just one example from the bill. Clauses 9 to 11 deal with the formation of waka pū, which is the tribal entity being proposed. On the face of it, a group of hapū are able to form themselves into a waka pū for the purpose of settling a claim, which they may rightly decide they have proper claim to, and, at the same time, however, a leader or leaders at an iwi level, which embodies those same hapū, could also say that they are the ones who should form the waku pū. What will the Government do then? It seems to me, as I said earlier, that this has the potential for divisiveness and for far more tension than anybody needs at this stage in Māori development.

I want to be quite clear as to why National does not support this legislation. Māori did not seek it. They did not ask for it. Although the Government said it consulted Māori—I might say consulted in inverted commas—the initiative was not Māori. It was the initiative here in Wellington, developed first by the Law Commission—and nobody asked the Law Commission to do this, other than the Government—and then armies of bureaucrats busied themselves, over a number of years, to put this legislation into place. There is no great rush for it. I am sure there will be no great rush for it when it is passed, if the support parties of the Government help it through. It does seem to be an utter waste of time. This is a model developed by bureaucrats in Wellington, and it is now sought to be imposed on Māori.

As I said, this bill had its genesis in the Law Commission, and that in itself does not engender great confidence, especially now with Sir Geoffrey Palmer pushing legislation left, right, and centre. But I suppose when the Government is not capable of doing its own legislation, it has to turn to one of its own. Thirdly, this is typical of the Labour Government’s mode of operation, which is: “We know best. Māori, you need us to tell you how to run your lives.” Frankly, the Minister should be ashamed of himself for coming to the House with legislation that Māori have not asked for. He has had bureaucrats in Wellington busy, wasting time, working on it. Māori do not need any Government in the 21st century telling them how to run their lives—how to suck eggs, actually, because that is what this is all about.

The experience of Ngāi Tahu and Tainui—and I bring those two tribes into this debate with the greatest of respect—is a shining example of what Māori can do when they are released from the shackles of the Māori Land Court, for one, and when they are freed from an overbearing Government that seeks to push legislation on them. Indeed, in the 21st century all Māori ask for is to have full capacity to exercise their rangatiratanga, to find their way, to develop their own structures, and to manage their—

Sue Moroney: Is that National Party policy?

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: There is some person on the Labour side who thinks she knows better than Māori people. Goodness me! She is typical of the Government she is part of. She is a Pākehā woman, as well. National in Government in the 1990s gave Māori the freedom to develop their own entities, and Ngāi Tahu and Tainui are prime examples of that approach. If only that Government could get it into its head that it does not have the solutions for everything, that it does not know best how to manage Māori, and that it should set them free.

I said at the beginning of my speech that there are far more pressing issues to worry about than this, but this Government has wasted human and financial resources in developing a bill that has no value—it is voluntary, so the Government actually admits it has no value—and it is likely not to be picked up by any Māori group, because no one is asking for it, and it flies in the face of Māori exercising their tino rangatiratanga in the 21st century.

DAVE HEREORA (Labour) : I take this opportunity to rise in support of the Waka Umanga (Māori Corporations) Bill, and I also take the opportunity to commend the Minister Parekura Horomia for bringing this bill to the House. It is not surprising that the Opposition is not supporting this bill. When in the past has the National Party supported a positive initiative to give enhancements for Māori? Never. So it is not surprising that National is not supporting the bill. It is not surprising at all.

The Māori Affairs Committee heard from the Law Commission. It gave us a briefing in relation to the principles surrounding this bill, and it pointed out quite a serious problem, which was that existing legal identities did not provide adequately for the tribes. The commission’s report states that the “incorporated societies law prohibits the pursuit of pecuniary gain as an objective;”. It also states that “companies are designed for individual investors not communal investment;”, and that “trusts manage assets for beneficiaries and not at the direction of beneficiaries; charitable trusts are ultimately responsible to the Attorney-General, not to the people; Maori Trusts Boards are responsible to the Minister; Maori Incorporations serve individual shareholders; and statutory bodies depend on Government for their powers and for any amendment to those powers.” The report continues: “Maori have made creative use of existing legal structures but the Commission considered they should not have to work around structures but through structures designed for them. To overcome that problem the report proposes another option for Maori, the use of a new form of entity … which would have corporate identity and perpetual succession, hold assets for a general class, and operate according to charters designed by the people to accommodate their circumstances.”

The commission also claimed that the lack of legal framework for tribal restructuring was to ensure that entities are developed by people themselves against the background of their own culture. Almost all current legal institutions do not reflect the iwi structures in their governance models. Because of that, Māori are prevented from access and overall participation within the economy. That is unfair; therefore, it deserved to be addressed. So the Law Commission called for legislation to provide a legal governance model that could be adopted by Māori identities managing collectively owned assets that embraced some fundamental aspects reflective of their tribal structure, capturing the cultural sensitivities necessary to enhance the service for Māori as a whole. The bill is reflective of those principles as outlined by the Law Commission.

As the Minister stated earlier, this legislation is underpinned by the Government’s Māori affairs policy of supporting the realisation of Māori potential, and it comes as a result of the consideration by this Government of issues reflective of Māori governance and tribal representation. The bill recognises the rights of Māori collectives enabling development of processes in sync with iwi development—their own structures, with their own administrative procedures—so as to enable iwi to make their own decisions about what was important to them; that is, to provide iwi with the ability to ultimately become independent, self-sustaining, and self-reliant, based on those terms. To achieve that, we must accept the enduring traditional significance and importance of iwi, by identifying the characteristics by which iwi are to be recognised. This bill captures the very essence of those principles.

In taking this short call, as chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, I say that we look forward to receiving this bill, and I intend on calling for submissions and welcoming the input of all affected parties as we analyse this bill and report those findings back to the House.

Hon TAU HENARE (National) : The intelligentsia sitting with their flat whites, pontificating about how they can help the lumpenproletariat! That is how the Waka Umanga (Māori Corporations) Bill came about. That is what it was! The Minister of Māori Affairs, Parekura Horomia, has been Minister for 8 years, and he has not had even one piece of legislation in the House that he thought up. He has been taking $180,000 a year, and not once has he come to this House with his own idea. Who came up with this legislation? The big fat cats of Māoridom have been sitting down on the quay and thinking to themselves what they can do for the lumpenproletariat.

Hon Brian Donnelly: You don’t even know what the lumpenproletariat is!

Hon TAU HENARE: Let us get to New Zealand First. Let us cut to the chase, for the new ambassador to the Cook Islands. I want to quote from a speech.

Hon Member: Are you iwi or Kiwi?

Hon TAU HENARE: I am iwi and I am Kiwi. The speech states: “One result will be that the Government will step back from the role that the last Labour Government took upon itself of interfering in the matter that properly belonged to the Maori tribes. It is not the business of the Government to dictate to Maori how the territory of the tribes is to be determined.”

Who said that? It was the Rt Hon Winston Peters, 17 years ago in this very House. When he became the Minister of Māori Affairs he repealed the Runanga Iwi Act, and that was the one and only thing he ever did right. Well, actually, no; but I will not tell members the second thing. He also went on to say: “The wishes of the people were never a consideration of the former administration.”—meaning the Labour Government. “Instead, it proceeded full speed ahead with a piece of legislation that had neither the support nor the consent of the people.” The Labour Government rushed it through the House on 28 August 1990.

It is exactly what we have here, in terms of being rushed through the House. Why, for God’s sake, after 8 years has this Minister done nothing? He is an abject joke around the traps. He is the worst Minister of Māori Affairs that this nation has ever seen, and I include myself as one of those illustrious former Ministers of Māori Affairs.

But then we heard from—[Interruption] I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not mind a bit of barracking. I can take it, just like the rest of us. But I always get told to interject from my own seat. I ask that the Minister follow the rules, as well.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The Minister has been sitting in the seat he is in for a while. He is allowed to do that. It is only when he moves to another seat for the purposes of interjecting that it is out of order. He has not done that.

Hon TAU HENARE: Oh well, there we go. After 8 years, what have those members opposite done for Māori? The National Party when in Government supported the first kōhanga reo and supported the first kura kaupapa Māori, and where have we seen kura and kōhanga in the last 8 years? This Government is an abject failure. New Zealand First is about to support the same bill, in principle, as the Runanga Iwi Act. We did not ask for it. Māori did not ask for it. Not one Māori came to this House with a petition. Not one Māori came to the select committee or came to the House with a petition to say: “Please, sir, we need this bill to survive, because we’ve run out of blankets, we’ve run out of beads, and now we need this waka umanga.” For goodness’ sake—

Hon Steve Chadwick: Oh, what an insult!

Hon TAU HENARE: They do not like this bit, but boy do they not smell of the old colonial master! Boy, do they not smell of the old “We know best; Helen Clark is our mother. Helen Clark is the mother of the nation.”

Well, this Government is on borrowed time, and the first thing we will do—well, maybe not the first thing, but the second thing—is get rid of this nanny State rubbish that continues to tell the indigenous people of this country—[Interruption] Well, I wonder what the Māori Party is going to do. I know it will support us. I know it will support the National Party’s view, which is to vote against this bill because it is an abject waste of time and money. I tell members that the Minister did not even know about the waka ama legislation—

Hon Brian Donnelly: Waka ama?

Hon TAU HENARE: —the Waka Umanga (Māori Corporations) Bill. I made a mistake. The other one was joining New Zealand First.

The Minister did not even ask for this to be done; it was Sir Geoffrey Palmer and his mates—the Labour Party lackeys. It was the Labour Party lackeys who thought to themselves that it would be a good idea and that maybe it will make the Minister look really good. I doubt it. They thought that maybe it will show the nation that the Minister has been doing some work. It would have been all right if he had written the blooming thing, but he had nothing to do with it.

Hon Parekura Horomia: You’re soft in the head.

HONE HARAWIRA: I ask Mr Horomia who is soft in the head. That is not what they say about him around the community. Oh, no! They do not say that Parekura is soft in the head. They do not even know who he is. I tell him that he can go to all the tangi and hui he wants, but the Minister of Māori Affairs is an abject joke. He is the laughing stock of Māoridom. This bill only goes to show that he does not know what he is doing and that he has to rely on the former Labour Party leader Sir Geoffrey Palmer to do his bidding. Again, it is nothing more than the old colonial master telling a bunch of Māoris what to do, again. In the Minister of Māori Affairs’ speech, not once—

Hon Parekura Horomia: What about the unemployment?

Hon TAU HENARE: So this is all about unemployment, now?

Hon Parekura Horomia: You did nothing.

Hon TAU HENARE: Well, we did nothing. That is all right, I say to Parekura. The National Party supported kōhanga—

Hon Parekura Horomia: You did nothing.

Hon TAU HENARE: OK, we did nothing. Five kura kaupapa a year were established under the then Minister of Education, the Hon Lockwood Smith. That policy went, under this Labour Government. How many kura have been established under this Minister? Sweet FA. So do not tell me—

Martin Gallagher: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am wondering whether you could determine whether the phrase “sweet FA”, given what it alludes to, is a parliamentary term.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I think all this comes down to order in the Chamber and to a question of taste, really.

Hon TAU HENARE: Well, one person’s taste is another person’s meal. That will not cover up what that Minister is about to feel. He is about to feel the wrath of the people. I saw them out there a couple of years ago and they should have taken the opportunity to boot him out then. But I am relying on the Māori Party to take that seat. I am relying on the Māori Party. In fact, the House is relying on the Māori Party, because we are sick and tired of the garbled messages that we get from this Minister.

Hon Parekura Horomia: You’ll cut and run again.

Hon TAU HENARE: There he goes again. You see, the reason why we have a translator is so we can understand what he is talking about. We cannot understand his English and we certainly cannot understand his Māori. We are sick of him. He is a joke. At least I tell the truth, that he is a joke. This bill encapsulates what he has been doing. Do members know what that is? It is a big, fat nothing. This bill was put forward by the so-called intelligentsia of Māoridom and Pākehādom. Eddie Durie sat down with Sir Geoffrey Palmer and thought that this is what the poor natives need—a corporate structure. Iwi—and Kiwis—have been around for thousands of years. We do not need this bill and we never asked for it.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) : One or two issues were raised in the previous speech that I think need to be referred to. The first one is that the member continued to use the expression “lumpenproletariat”. He actually does not understand who the lumpenproletariat are. He was referring to the lumpenproletariat as being Māori. Well, Karl Marx used the word “lumpenproletariat”—

Hon Tau Henare: Well, workers don’t understand, so you—

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY: They were not the workers. The proletariat were the workers. The lumpenproletariat were the criminal class—the prostitutes, thieves, and pickpockets. What that member just said shows that he believes that all Māori are lumped in with that class. He has insulted every Māori in New Zealand with the use of that expression, and he needs to go back and do his homework.

A second area he needs to do a little bit of homework on is in relation to kōhanga reo. It is absolutely correct that National said it would put in five kōhanga reo per annum.

Hon Tau Henare: No, no. It was kura. Get it right!

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY: Oh, kura kaupapa—the member is correct. It was five per year for 3 years, starting in 1995. As the then Associate Minister, with responsibility for Māori, I knew that in 1998 we were not going to put in any more—none.

Hon Tau Henare: Well, actually, that’s wrong, because there were—

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY: And that member was the Minister of Māori Affairs at the time, and I had to say “Sorry, we aren’t putting any more in, because there’s nothing budgeted for.” But New Zealand First said: “Listen! You’ve got all these kura kaupapa and they are having to work in broom cupboards, with no support, no help—nothing. We will put in place a policy whereby those developing kura kaupapa can be connected with an established kura kaupapa. We will put in additional money so they can be supported until they get to the stage where they are independent and have been reviewed by the Education Review Office. And we don’t care how many are developed each year as long as they are meeting the quality.” That was a policy put in place by New Zealand First in 1998, to develop kura kaupapa in the absence of any policy by National at that particular time.

Hon Tau Henare: Rubbish—what a load of rubbish!

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY: And the Minister of Māori Affairs did not even know that was going on. He took no interest, at all, and never talked to me about it. He did not even know what was happening.

I will go on with one or two things. I think it is fitting that a Minister from Ngāti Porou is bringing in this bill. Tau Henare got another thing wrong. New Zealand First has said we will support this bill going to the select committee and that we will listen to the arguments there. We believe that some genuine issues have to be worked through. Remember, it was the leader of New Zealand First who introduced Ka Awatea—a document about empowering Māori. It was Winston Peters, the leader of New Zealand First, who resolved the Taranaki leasehold issue by producing an extra $60 million—not the Minister of Māori Affairs at the time.

But I will go back in history and remember that corporations were a concept introduced by a great New Zealander—and I mean a great New Zealander. Many New Zealanders of both Treaty partners do not understand the greatness of the man Sir Apirana Ngata of Ngāti Porou. When we sing “Pokare Kare Ana”, do we think he created it? He did not have the words “wai a Rotorua” in it; “Waiapu” should have been in there. Te Arawa—[Interruption] They stole it. Poi was not a thing the wahine did; it was a male thing.

Sir Apirana Ngata introduced all those sorts of things, but he also introduced the concept of corporations to Māori—and I will now refer to a Marxist concept—who had had the means of production taken away from them. It is part of our shameful history. Sir Apirana Ngata asked how the means of production, which is the land, could be utilised in a productive fashion. He came up with the concept of corporations, and he worked it. As a result, places like the East Coast became very, very economically viable and in fact did very well.

Hon Tau Henare: It’s because they owned their own land.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY: And Tau Henare knows that that was a great period. By the way, the party Apirana Ngata belonged to was the embryonic party of the National Party. So I ask those members to stand up and say that he was one of theirs. But, in fact, Apirana Ngata imposed a Pākehā structure. He was viewing the world with a Pākehā perspective.

Hon Tau Henare: So is that the reason we’ve got this here?

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY: I want to say—if that man over there will just shut up—that all I am prepared to do is speak with a Pākehā voice, as somebody who has attempted to walk across the bridge, who knows full well that he will never, ever get fully across it, but who is prepared to continue to make the effort to get as far as possible in order to understand.

We in the Education and Science Committee have been looking at how we can make the system work for every person. We had a very good, encouraging presentation from Apryll Parata in terms of Ka Hikitia. I talked to my colleague Te Ururoa Flavell, who said that, yes, it was good, but he still did not have confidence that it would eradicate the gaps. And I had to agree with him. I could empathise with his frustration. It was going to help to close the gaps, I was totally confident, but it was not going to eradicate them.

We have to realise that there have been dynamics of subjugation, and of removal of the means of production—which is land—within our country. That is a fact, and we as a Parliament have to front up to it. As a nation, we need to recognise that and say that, yes, it occurred, and continue to rectify it.

I see in this particular bill the issue once again of wanting to look at how we are operating, and how we are giving back to Māori entities the potential to use the means of production. We will put the bill through the select committee process, we will listen, and we will ask whether it will further empower Māori and whether it is really in the same line as Ka Awatea.

I will use an example, which is a bit of a hobby horse of mine, of the subtle way in which Pākehā have been able to impose their will on the people of this nation. I ask the question—

Hon Tau Henare: And they’ll do it again tonight.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY: No. I tell the member there that I have said right here and now that I am speaking with a Pākehā voice, as much as possible, to a Pākehā audience, and Māori can agree or disagree with me, but—

Hon Tau Henare: You’re doing it again tonight.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY: Surely, that member is not going to close down freedom of speech or freedom of expression? But here is the point: we have departments, ministries of education, and everything else that keep calling this nation Aotearoa New Zealand. But we have to ask ourselves when New Zealand was actually named New Zealand. How many people in this House know who actually named this land New Zealand? There is one person, because I told him.

Gerry Brownlee: Abel Tasman.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY: It was not Abel Tasman; no, he named it Staten Landt.

Gerry Brownlee: Who was it?

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY: It was a guy by the name of Blaeu who was a Dutch cartographer. Who named it Aotearoa? It was another Pākehā, not a Māori. He was a Pākehā by the name of Stephenson Percy Smith. He named it Aotearoa. I will give the reason why the traditional name of this country was not Aotearoa. [Interruption] Hang on a second! I ask Tau Henare to tell me something. There had been linguistic contact between Pākehā and Māori for over 70 years when the Treaty of Waitangi was translated by missionaries into Māori, so why did they not use the term “Aotearoa”?

Hon Tau Henare: What about it?

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY: Well, if that was the traditional name for this country, then surely they would have put “Aotearoa” in there. The Declaration of Independence would have used the term “Aotearoa”; instead, it used “Niu Tīreni”, because there was no traditional name. I tell members here and now that Pākehā have subtly imposed this story through the school journals and through the education system, so we have all come to believe a Pākehā myth. That is the way we have operated.

Hon Member: It was a Smith.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY: It was a Smith; the member is right. It was a Smith myth. Let us go back to the bill itself. New Zealand First will be supporting it going to the select committee, but not beyond the select committee.

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: Why?

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY: We will listen to the arguments and do the necessary, because if we believe that this bill gives greater empowerment to Māori groups to utilise their means of production, then we believe that that is a positive direction for New Zealand. Thank you.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) : Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker; tēnā tātou katoa; tēnā koe, Gerry Brownlee. There is a whakatauākī that I will refer to as we consider this bill to provide for the formation and registration of new statutory governance entities—waka umanga—by tribal groups and Māori associations. It goes like this: “Me mātau ki te whetū, i mua i te kōkiri o te haere—before you set forth on a journey, be sure you know the stars.” You see, our tūpuna were celestial navigators and astronomers, referring to the stars as a key navigational beacon for ocean voyages, calculating time and the seasons, and attributing names to each of the periods in the lunar cycle—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I am sorry to interrupt the member, but on all sides there is just far too much chatter. If members want to chatter, they should just go outside to the lobbies, please. The speaker is not getting a fair go.

TE URUROA FLAVELL: Do I start my time again, Madam Assistant Speaker?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): No.

TE URUROA FLAVELL: I am just joking; it is all right. I was talking about the cycles and about how our people attributed names to various periods of the lunar cycle, such as Whiro, Tirea, Ohoata, Ōrongonui, Maurea, Mutu, and so on. Names were also given to the individual stars, or whetū—Te Ikaroa, Te Mangōroa, Te Paeroa o Whānui, Whiti-kaupeka, Ngā Pātari, and many, many more. The legwork was done, negotiation with key stakeholders was thorough and complex, and no journey would be embarked upon until every last factor was accounted for.

As we launch this waka umanga project, which is basically a tailor-made legal structure to cater for the governance needs of Māori collectives, we in the Māori Party ask ourselves whether the same desire for certainty has been followed.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I appreciated very much the intervention that you took before, and now that I have finished the sorts of funny things at the start, I am trying to move to be a little bit serious. I would appreciate it if those members who are interrupting my flow would move outside please, if that is OK.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member is quite right. It is just chatter, chatter coming in all the time, and it really is rude. If members want to talk, then they should just go outside.

TE URUROA FLAVELL: Where was I?

Hon Tau Henare: Oh, I don’t know. Where were you?

TE URUROA FLAVELL: I will tell Mr Henare right now. A key selling point that that member happened to miss when he was talking about this proposal is that a registration as a waka umanga is optional. That is OK; choice is good, we say. That is, of course, depending on whether the choice is a real one, because it would appear from the outset that a powerful incentive exists for iwi, which is that if they gain a legitimate status under the eyes of the Crown, then they are all the more likely to be in a safe position to receive Treaty settlement funds and assets.

The problem is, inevitably, how we define the very nature of the problem in the first place. Let me put it like this: is it a problem as defined by whānau, hapū, and iwi? Or is the nature of the problem envisaged in this bill really just a solution to address a problem for the Crown? Is the solution one that has been dreamt up by the agents of the Crown to solve problems that the bureaucracy has in itself created by imposing inadequate legal structures on hapū and iwi during settlements? These are the sorts of questions we are asking.

We come to this bill knowing, of course, that the governance needs of Māori collectives are not being properly catered for in the existing legal structures such as trusts, companies, and incorporated societies. So, hey presto, this bill specifies that corporate governance arrangements and standards be included in the charter of every waka umanga, including procedures for internal dispute resolution. With true legalese attention to detail, a waka umanga must meet certain standards of accountability before it can be registered. This includes the election and duties of governors, planning, financial management, the role of the chief executive officer, and other specifics.

Although the motive to address the problems of trusts, companies, and incorporated societies was a positive one, the proposed legal entity closes down the possibility of developing Māori models of governance consistent with tradition, tikanga Māori, and tino rangatiratanga. I think that is the major point. The upshot of it all is that although we all see that there are some issues with Māori governance that require a response—there is no doubt about that—the one-stop shop standard, one-size-fits-all corporate model approved by the Crown, is not, we say, and never will be, the only answer.

Hon Tau Henare: So yes or no?

TE URUROA FLAVELL: This was alluded to a little bit by the Hon Tau Henare when he did talk with some clarity. As our whakatauākī tell us, before we set forth on any journey we must be sure we know the full pattern of the stars before us.

This bill proposes a legal entity that is both more easily subject to Crown control, we say, and less expressive of tino rangatiratanga. It is great for the Crown, but it is not so great for the Treaty partner. We believe the solution lies in rephrasing the problem in terms of how to make the Crown recognise Māori governance entities as formulated by Māori. A different starting framework could have come up with something quite different. We have to wonder, if whānau, hapū, and iwi had been given the opportunity to create their own governance model to determine their own governance entities, what would that have looked like?

It comes down to rangatiratanga. It could have been quite different. The bill could have reflected the kōrero that was laid down at Te Wānanga o Raukawa in November at a hui held specifically to explore a kaupapa Māori organisational framework. The hui was stimulated by the Ngāti Kahungunu pepeha, “Mā te rango te waka ka rere”, which refers to the importance of having the foundation correctly prepared in order for a project to be launched successfully. Literally, the rango are the rollers used in the launching of a waka. So when an important waka was built, the trees for the rango were taken at the same time that the tree for the waka was taken. They had their own karakia, and had to be treated with the same degree of care and respect as the waka itself. If the preparations with respect to the rango were not properly carried out, then the waka would not be properly launched and, therefore, it would not glide speedily into the water.

Through this line of thought a paper was provided by Ani Mikaere at the hui, and it demonstrates the importance of having a strong contextual footing before any project is established. She stated: “How should we view the Waka Umanga Bill? It may well incorporate aspects of tikanga, thereby modelling the cultural sensitivity that the Crown proclaims to be in accord with its Treaty obligations, but clearly the accommodation of tikanga values within a Western legal framework is a totally different prospect to the acknowledgement of tikanga as the supreme law of the land.”

In the same hui Annette Sykes argued that tikanga Māori, with its ethical foundations in whanaungatanga, manaakitanga, and kaitiakitanga, should provide the basis for law in this land.

Dr Wayne Mapp: Don’t be misled by Annette Sykes.

TE URUROA FLAVELL: Well, that is all very well for Dr Mapp to say, but she actually tried to make a positive contribution. Her response to the waka umanga proposal was that in seeking to define authority within Western imperatives, Western frameworks, and processes of kāwanatanga, the waka umanga proposal was in itself a further denial of the fundamental right of tino rangatiratanga affirmed into Te Tiriti o Waitangi. And this is the key issue. The Waka Umanga (Māori Corporations) Bill may well incorporate aspects of tikanga, but clearly the accommodation of tikanga values within a Western legal framework is a totally different prospect from the acknowledgment of tikanga as the supreme law of the land.

The overriding recommendation of the hui held in November was in recognition that any such governance model needs to be developed by Māori. We in the Māori Party recognise that even though the Law Commission did seek to consult Māori, it was consultation with a restricted agenda, so the possibility for wide-ranging options to be considered was similarly limited. If the Law Commission had undertaken a different process, then it may well have come up with something quite different. Tangata whenua attending the hui at Te Wānanga o Raukawa opted for that difference. They suggested that hapū and iwi should be given the time and space to come up with their own governance models, and that the Law Commission assist in that project.

Of course, we are fully aware of the risks of opposing a proposal such as the one addressed in this bill. We know the argument that the proposed law will be an improvement on what we currently have. Well, in formulating the waka umanga concept, the commission has striven to create a mechanism that is “specifically shaped to meet the organisational needs of Māori tribes and other groups that manage communal Māori assets”. And, yes, of course that is an improvement on the status quo, and we look positively on that, but at the end of the day it is still a Crown measure that accommodates tikanga in some way. In this way it is but another subordination of tikanga Māori to the laws and philosophical foundations of other world views and Western frameworks. Ani Mikaere in her paper How Will Future Generations Judge Us, asked the people at the hui to consider that as tangata whenua their cultural survival demanded that they look to tikanga Māori for solutions, and encouraged them never to lose their ability to imagine.

So, in summary, we remember the message of the pepeha: “Mā te rango te waka ka rere”, and the importance of ensuring the foundation is correctly prepared in order for a project to be launched successfully. The questions raised at the hui and by some of our leading analysts and thinkers throughout Māoridom make us all the more aware that the foundation for this waka is not yet on steady ground. We will support the Waka Umanga (Māori Corporations) Bill at this first reading to ensure the voices of Te Ao Māori are brought to the table. But we will be alert to the question that haunted the hui: how will the future generations judge us?

METIRIA TUREI (Green) : I will take a very short call on this Waka Umanga (Māori Corporations) Bill after having heard significant and mostly useful arguments about it. The Greens will support having the bill go to a select committee. We think it is worthwhile—

Hon Tau Henare: Oh, yeah, that’s right. That’s great. Here we go!

METIRIA TUREI: If Mr Henare has finished, I say that we think it is worthwhile having this bill proceed so that we can see whether it really will meet the needs of Māori or whether it is too structurally focused on providing for the needs of the Crown and, particularly, the Office of Treaty Settlements. But it is certainly true that the nature and structure of governance entities has been a serious problem in the Treaty settlement process. Arguments about governance entities have held up some settlements for 5 years or more, and the blame for that lies squarely at the feet of the Government and of the Office of Treaty Settlements, because they have argued for their criteria for a governance entity.

Gerry Brownlee: This won’t fix it.

METIRIA TUREI: Mr Brownlee can shout and slap his hands on his desk, but that is not a particularly useful way of dealing with the arguments about the merits or non-merits of the legislation, which I am trying to elucidate to some extent.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Please, the interjecting is just too much. We need to hear the speaker and we just cannot over the member’s interjecting.

Gerry Brownlee: Well, ask her to stay relevant.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Mr Brownlee, I am ruling on this point of order. I am asking you and Mr Henare to just give the speaker a fair go, please. Thank you.

METIRIA TUREI: Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted by the National members, the Office of Treaty Settlements is largely to blame—in fact, I think it is solely to blame—for the delays that have been experienced by iwi Māori who are trying to get their settlements through.

The Greens have never been strong advocates of the settlement process and we have criticised every settlement. We do not believe the settlement process is fair, and until it has been completely revised in accordance with the needs of Māori as opposed to the needs of the Crown, it will always be a fundamentally—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Mr Henare, I will now ask you to desist. The member has really gone over the top in interjecting.

Hon Tau Henare: In what way?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Mr Henare, I am on my feet. I will give you a warning. I am asking you now to desist. I think you have interrupted every speaker in this debate tonight quite extensively, and I am just warning you that it is going over the top. I have ruled—

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. I have ruled on that simple point of order and I have ruled that the member’s interjections are too disruptive for the order of the House. I am not taking any argument on it.

Hon Tau Henare: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you point out to me in the Standing Orders where it allows you to shut down one person in the debating chamber? The Standing Orders state that I have a right to interject in a “rare and reasonable” way. You might not think the interjections are reasonable, and you may not even think they are rare, but I do have that opportunity to interject on any speaker in the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. I have been very tolerant towards you, Mr Henare. It is my decision, and my decision is from Speakers’ rulings and the Standing Orders.

Hon Tau Henare: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. If the member is going to argue with me, the member will leave the Chamber now.

Hon Tau Henare: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek a point of clarification. Are you saying that I am not allowed to interject in the next 35 minutes?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member is trifling with the Chair. He is questioning my ruling. The member will leave the Chamber now.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. The member will leave the Chamber now.

Gerry Brownlee: I am calling for a point of order—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Please be seated, Mr Brownlee. I am dealing with one matter, and the matter is that Mr Henare is leaving the Chamber.

• Hon Tau Henare withdrew from the Chamber.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That was an extremely unfair act, in our opinion. Mr Henare has every right to interject on a speaker, as has any member in this House. I have to say that in my time in this House I have heard far worse interjections on speakers than that offered by Mr Henare tonight. The appropriate course of action would have been for you to suggest that in order for the speaker to be heard, her speech should be heard in silence, a position from which there is absolutely no recourse for any member of the House. But to simply single out a member and ask him to leave the Chamber is to be completely unfair, and I think it contributes to disorder.

Hon Brian Donnelly: I want to just say that during my speech of 10 minutes Mr Henare continued to interject for the whole 10 minutes. There was not 5 seconds when he was not making an interjection in that speech. In my particular case I chose to ignore him, but he continued to do that afterwards and, having been given a warning by you, he continued to ignore that warning. I have to say that I believe the action you have taken could very well have been made long before it was.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I would say to Mr Brownlee that Mr Donnelly is perfectly right. I think I have been overly tolerant of Mr Henare. However, I will not debate it with the member. The point is that I have made my ruling and the member was certainly guilty of misconduct.

METIRIA TUREI: We hold the Office of Treaty Settlements fully to account for its delays and its behaviour in creating the delays for settlements, particularly around governance entities. As I was saying before, we do not support the Treaty settlement process; we consider it to be inherently flawed. But at the same time, our people are engaged in that process and are trying to do the best that they can for their people, so in the meantime we have to find mechanisms to make it easier for them to get proper justice.

To that extent, we are prepared to consider the bill—

Gerry Brownlee: Stand up when you’re speaking. Stop slouching.

METIRIA TUREI: —I say to Mr Brownlee—and have it go to a select committee. Then we will be able to get people to come in and we can hear their submissions—[Interruption] Mr Heatley is making really helpful comments about personal etiquette, which was nicely done.

I know that there was a consultation process, and my colleague from the Māori Party has outlined a lot of the serious concerns that were raised during that time. We are always reluctant to force Māori to have this continual round of consultation, where they are perpetually ignored. They are always asked for their opinion, which is then largely dismissed.

Dr Wayne Mapp: So you’re going to pass more legislation to make them do it all over again. How stupid is that?

METIRIA TUREI: It is a risk. I agree with Dr Mapp, who so rudely commented on Annette Sykes earlier even though her view is the same as his. Even though she agreed with him on the point that the bill was not a very good idea, he was still very rude about her. The point is we have to be very careful about that process.

But in the meantime this bill is before the House. Let us see whether it is possible to remedy the problems with it and see what other options come out of it. As we know, the purpose of the select committee process is to look at what can be done to fix legislation, and we are prepared to be constructively engaged. If in the end it turns out that there is just not the support for it, that it is not able to remedy the issues it is designed to remedy, and that it will cause more problems or will be used as a tool by the Government and the Office of Treaty Settlements to force Māori into a specific kind of governance structure and will not enable them to have the more creative solutions they are putting forward, then we will not be supporting it any further than that. But it is worthwhile having that exploration.

The Greens take a constructive approach to legislation. We would like to see a real discussion had about this matter by the House and by Parliament as a whole. Thank you.

GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) : I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have two points. The first is that I called well ahead of Ms Turner. Secondly, the Chair appears to have recognised that New Zealand First and the Green Party are both parties that support the Government ahead of the official Opposition. That seems to me to be somewhat unfair, particularly in regard to the fact that the Standing Orders make it clear that whoever gets to his or her feet first should get the call.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member is perfectly wrong on that point. It has nothing to do with being a competition as to who stands first, at all. [Interruption] Please be seated, Mr Brownlee. I am on my feet ruling on a point of order. I warn the member not to try the Chair. The point I would make to the member, and I would have thought the member knew this, is that there is an order of speaking and we are following that order in this first reading debate.

GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) : I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Would you be good enough to tell the House where I would look in my copy of the Standing Orders to find a contradiction to the Standing Order that states that whoever makes the call first gets the call, because this is a new ruling. Could you could simply tell us, Madam Assistant Speaker, when it became a Standing Order of this House that there is a predetermined order for speaking. We know that that is the case in question time, but it does not exist in any other debate other than the general debate.

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) : Perhaps I can assist the member in his request. If he looks on page 41 of the Standing Orders, he will see how the Speaker determines who speaks. There has been a longstanding provision in this House—as long as I have been here, anyway, and that is a fair while—that the Speaker generally picks speakers alternately from the Government and the Opposition. But when the Opposition has had a fair number of speakers, and there are a number of speakers from minor parties, it has been the tradition that the Speaker picks those who have not yet spoken.

GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) : Mr Duynhoven points right to the dilemma that the House now faces. Standing Order 101, under the heading “Rules of Debate”, states: “when two or more members rise together the member called upon by the Speaker is entitled to speak.” In this case, two members did not rise together. One—me—rose well ahead of anybody else and received the call. Standing Order 102 talks about “Factors to be taken into account by Speaker in calling members”. The rules—and members need to read them, because the House should understand what is going on here—state: “In deciding whom to call, the Speaker takes account of the following factors: (a) if possible, a member of each party should be able to speak in each debate:”. That would be a good idea if we were a Parliament in which parties were equally represented. We are not; we are a Parliament in which the major Opposition party is overwhelmingly represented in the House.

Secondly, Standing Order 102(b) states: “overall participation in a debate should be approximately proportional to party membership in the House:”. That is fair. But the proviso is if it is possible. Thirdly, Standing Order 102(c) states: “priority should be given to party spokespersons in order of size of party membership in the House:”. That is a disputed Standing Order, as the Speaker will know. Most minor parties have one person representing a range of spokesmanships, which means that that Standing Order completely contradicts the idea of any speaking arrangements being proportional. Last of all, Standing Order 102(d) states that in deciding whom to call, the Speaker takes account of “the seniority of members and the interests and expertise of individual members who wish to speak.” I think that the weight of these Standing Orders, quite rightly brought to the attention of the House by the Hon Harry Duynhoven, falls overwhelmingly in favour of the National Party.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) : The previous member made the statement, when he raised his first point of order, that there was a Standing Order that said that the person who took the call first should get the call.

Gerry Brownlee: 101.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY: Actually, it does not say that. In fact, the member has just got up and disproved his case.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I just remind the member that Brian Donnelly was on a point of order. Nobody interrupted Mr Brownlee. As I said before, it is not a race; it is up to the Speaker’s discretion within the Standing Orders. I remind the member that it is the Business Committee that has agreed to an indicative order of calls, which we have certainly been following for the 5 years that I have been here.

GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) : I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Mr Brownlee, I have ruled on the matter. The call is going to Judy Turner.

GERRY BROWNLEE: That is OK, but I have a point of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Is it a different point of order?

GERRY BROWNLEE: It is a point of order, Madam Assistant Speaker. You cannot ask me to indicate what my point of order is, then decide whether it is a point of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. I am not going to take another point of order from you on the point of order that I have already ruled on, which concerned the speaking order. That is how it is. I have given the call correctly in terms of the Standing Orders.

GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) : I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I fully accept that you have made a determination and that that is what will happen, but I would be most interested to know on what day the Business Committee decided there would be an order to speaking in the House. I have sat on that committee for some 8 years and do not recall that decision being made by the Business Committee. If I am wrong, please tell me the day on which that decision was made.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member needs to go back to the minutes of the Business Committee meetings in order to find out when it made that decision. These decisions are made at the beginning of each term. The committee has looked at the proportionality of Parliament. As I said, it is an indicative order that the Speaker uses to go by. That is exactly what I have done, as per the Standing Orders. The Clerk has just told me that the decision was made on 8 November 2005.

GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) : I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I offer my sincere apologies. I must have been away that day.

JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) : United Future’s introduction to this bill happened about 6 months ago. We were invited to a briefing that was apparently kick-starting a second round of consultation on the matter that this bill seeks to address. The first round was a series of 15 information hui that were conducted during October and November in 2006, when Justice Durie sought feedback on proposals for legislation contained in the Law Commission report 92, Waka Umanga: A Proposed Law for Māori Governance Entities. What came out of his round of consultation was that tribal authorities felt that the existing legal provisions did not always provide adequately for tribes. For example, they pointed out that incorporated societies, where the law prohibited financial gain as an objective, often did not suit their needs. Companies are designed for individual investors, not for the management of communal assets. Trusts manage assets for beneficiaries rather than at their direction, and charitable trusts are ultimately responsible to the Attorney-General rather than the affected people. Based on that kind of feedback, and a range of other things that came out of that consultation process, the ongoing work on this bill continued.

Let me talk about some of the other concerns that Justice Durie highlighted as a result of that process. There were some real concerns around the issue of formation that there were major and debilitating disputes on how organisations should be formed to manage tribal affairs and assets. As the Green member Metiria Turei mentioned, these disputes often delayed a settlement process while they were being worked through. The second consideration was that there was no independent and fair process for the ready resolution of such disputes, so these disputes went on and on with no clear process in place to help settle them. The third concern was that the Treaty claims process had become overly determinant as to how tribes are being shaped for future generations, and there were some concerns around that. The fourth concern was that the interests of smaller hapū groups may be washed out by larger settlements. The next concern was that there were no clear policies on voting rights for regular marae supporters and absentees, and that the courts were reluctant to intervene on tribal formation disputes. All of these were issues that were raised during that process of consultation.

There was an additional concern about the fact that at present there can be no finality about who represents a tribe in legal proceedings, commercial transactions, or consultations. Therefore, United Future—and I am taking only a brief call—is happy to support this first reading because it seems sensible to us, and it seems to honour the dialogue that has happened to date. We support this bill being referred to a select committee so that tribal groups can further investigate this option to see whether it has merit and whether it has any application for the legal needs that they have, and therefore we are happy to support this first reading.

GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) : It has been fascinating to sit in the House tonight to listen to the speeches that really do convey the sort of Uncle—and Auntie—Tom approach that so many political parties have towards Māori in this country. The most disappointing speeches of all have come from the Māori Party itself.

I recall that the Māori Party was established because the group who established that party did not like the foreshore and seabed legislation. They went from one end of the country to the other, saying that that was the worst form of colonial suppression and land-grab upon Māori ever seen. They enlisted the support of Māori up and down the country, on the basis that they were going to have some sort of new renaissance for Māori, for Māori leadership, and for Māori governance in this country. Then they came trotting into this House tonight, voting for a bill like this, which confirms all of the worst aspects of the way Māori have been treated in this country since the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi.

This is a bill that simply puts a Māori name on the institutions of the colonial Government and of the modern New Zealand Government, and makes Māori say “Forget about all of your iwi affiliations and all of your traditional ways of doing things, and fall into line with the way we expect the law to be administered in this country.”, which is in total disregard of Māori culture and the history that Māori have always had in this country. It absolutely staggers me. I think it is amazing that we have so much law in this country specifically for Māori. There are those out there who say “Well, if you start saying that, you are somehow a racist. You’re picking on Māori.”

But the worst finger that goes on Māori in this country comes from this country’s statutes themselves. There are so many laws specific to Māori. I cannot understand why normal property laws, if we are to adopt them, have to be so different for them—and Māori have adopted them, by the way; they say “Yep, OK, we’re going to go with those.” Why does there have to be a separate court for Māori to go to? Why do we have to have a different name for some sort of Māori trust structure? Why do we have to have different arrangements for communally owned property for Māori? These are simple points, and it staggers me that Māori are standing up in the House tonight, one after the other, saying “We think this is a great thing.”

We know that Mr Parekura Horomia is basically not a bad bloke. But he is hell-bent and determined upon doing the business of his political party, which has always been about making Māori subservient to its political views. Absolutely! If we take just a few moments to look at serious progress in the last couple of decades for Māori, we see that none of it has been about imposing control on Māori; all of it has been about saying “Take the lead that you know you can, and get on with it.” I find it amazing that somehow the National Party is the villain in tonight’s debate, when in fact it has been the National Party that has been so willing in the last couple of decades to address Treaty of Waitangi issues, to recognise that there was grievance, and also to step outside the circle and say “There is a group of people in this country who can do well for themselves, so let’s create an environment in which they can do it.”

What really is irritating is that some of the advantages that will come to the country in a wider sense from that approach, will be lost if we keep driving down the lines of this sort of legislation. I give the House one simple example of that. In 1992 there was the fisheries settlement. There are a couple of interesting things about that. Firstly, at that point no one really knew how big the fishery was. It was just out there, and there were people fishing it, and there were foreigners coming in, doing joint ventures, and cleaning out the seas, left, right, and centre. Occasionally a new species was found. That was fished to death, and let go. So there was a decision to say “Let’s put some sort of a quota and some sort of a boundary around what we catch in our seas.”, “Let us be fair about it and say that there is a traditional fishery via the Māori in this country.”, and, “Just for simple purposes let’s allocate, among this artificial quota, 20 percent for Māori.”

What has been the effect of that? The effect has been that New Zealand has remained in control of its fishery, and that Māori now control more than 50 percent of that fishery. It has been acquired by commercial means and through good practice, and it is also maintaining an industry that could easily have been lost to this country. That is an advantage not just to Māori but to the whole country. That was a simple, simple exercise that recognised a group of people who had an interest, and a capacity, to look after something that was of use and value for the entire country. It was perhaps the best exercise of a property right we have ever seen, post-1840.

Now we come down to this particular bill. I remember my time on the Māori Affairs Committee where we had numerous occasions to talk to Māori trust boards, left, right, and centre, and numerous occasions to haul in the Māori Trustee—a heck of a nice chap, but doing a hell of a job. Huge amounts of land inside this country were owned by Māori but were of no use to them because no one was looking after the land. Here we have a bill that simply puts a flash name over the top—Waka Umanga, a Māori name—but the bill perpetuates exactly the same sort of uselessness that has bedevilled Māori for years, for decades, ever since the Treaty of Waitangi. I do not think one speaker who spoke in favour of this bill tonight has given one positive reason why the House should support it.

I want to know if some of those people out there, who maybe have even a minuscule interest in some Māori land, will be advantaged by this bill. The answer is no; they will not. Nothing will change. The people who have managed to get themselves into a position inside the Māori structure, and who have then used the law of the land with the exclusions it has particularly for Māori, will continue to control those assets and the benefit from them. But I do not know how Parekura Horomia, who I said before is a good bloke, can reasonably say that this bill represents progress for Māori.

Let me go through the rest of this bill. We have titles like “Governance”. Well, I would have thought that it is no business of this Parliament how a group of people who own property should structure their governance. No one tells me how to do that. No one tells me how I have to own my property. No one tells any others who are individuals in this country the way to own their property and the way to run it. But, oh no, the Māori—well, they are a little bit thick, a little bit dim, a little bit slow, so we had better have a special law for them! It is the worst form of Uncle Tom patronisation that we could possibly get.

Metiria Turei: Iwi Kiwi! Ōrewa speech! Māori special privilege!

GERRY BROWNLEE: I get sick to death of people who happen to have a Māori name railing against the idea that Māori might make progress, simply because they have their own perverted view of what democracy means.

As I go through this bill I look at terms like “public good outcomes”. Well, there is always a public good outcome from the ownership of property if it is well administered. Why does it have to be recognised in a bill specifically for Māori? I look further through the bill and I see terms such as “Governance, management, and other matters relevant to registered waka umanga”. Why does this have to be so different for Māori from any other form of ownership of assets? Why is it that Māori, apparently, cannot make up their minds and cannot make their own decisions? Why do they have to be patronised and held by the hand?

My experience of looking at good Treaty settlement processes over the last 20 years has been that Māori will prosper extremely well. I come from the South Island. We have only one tribe down there, and—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I am sorry to interrupt the member, but his time has expired.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Customs) : I do not intend to take a very long call on this bill, but it is worth mentioning that it should be sent to the Māori Affairs Committee. If ever there was a reason to speak on a bill that advantages Māori, this is the one to speak on. That member of the Opposition—the member who has just resumed his seat—is a stark example of the difference between the Opposition and the Government. The Opposition wants to lock Māori into a way of thinking that there is only one type of law that should apply to everybody, and not recognising that with property law—property law, of all the laws the member points to—the fundamental difference between Māori and Pākehā is collective ownership of land. That is the fundamental difference. So he is showing his ignorance in huge magnitudes in this House tonight, and that shows that the National Party at no point in time will ever recognise fundamental differences in the way that Māori operate in this land, and that is sad. It is sad, because there have been two speakers from the Opposition—Georgina te Heuheu and Tau Henare—who, frankly, should know better. What they are saying tonight in this House is that Māori should lock themselves into governance structures that do not meet the needs of current-day development aspirations.

What is the fundamental difficulty with the Māori Trust Boards Act? Who are Māori accountable to? They are not accountable to their people but to the Minister of Māori Affairs—to the Crown. That is the shackle the National Party wants to perpetuate, and that is a shame. It is a shame that two National Opposition members in this House who are Māori want to perpetuate that type of governance structure. But there is more than that. There are a number of models, which the good member for United Future spoke about, that do not quite fit the current-day aspirations of Māori collectives and Māori iwi organisations who want to modernise the way in which their governance entity operates.

The other myth perpetuated by the Opposition was that this bill was solely driven by the Government. It was not. This was a considered piece of work that was done through the Law Commission. It was led by Justice Durie, someone who is well known to the Opposition and well known across this House, who has a standing well beyond that of the parliamentarians in this House. To perpetuate the myth that this bill has not been at all consulted on throughout the country I think is dishonest. It makes me so concerned about the type of leadership that National members might provide to Māori that we really have to expose them for who they really are, and that is dishonest and not able to achieve the aspirations that Māori want to achieve now.

The other part of this debate that concerns me is in part the argument put up by the Māori Party. Although there is widespread recognition of the collective benefits and interests of Māori as they exist within their iwi and hapū, and their need to develop their own aspirations and ways forward, the reality is that in order to bring them into today’s world and to help their economic development aspirations they have to have an entity that can actually take them forward—a vehicle for today. That is all this bill is. No one has said that this vehicle would be compulsory. No one has said that this vehicle would determine the way in which Māori have to operate in the future. However, it is a vehicle that, should it fit the desires of iwi and of Māori organisations, could be looked at.

It is worth picking up on a point that Metiria Turei raised in respect of Treaty settlements. I hope that once this bill gets to the select committee, the select committee will consider the way in which a waka umanga model will help the transition for iwi who are currently organised as either trust boards or incorporations, so the transitional provisions might be well considered by the select committee. But the other part is in respect of those iwi who are currently in negotiations over their Treaty settlements and whether the establishment of a waka umanga could cut across the types of negotiations that are currently happening with the Crown. It is certainly not the intention, but should the select committee concern itself with investigating this matter, then it would be time well spent.

Can I say that of all the discussions that have gone on tonight—and at 5 to 12 at night some of them may have been from a bit of an intoxicated rabble—one thing we on this side of the House cannot stand is plain, dishonest mistruths.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I will raise this point of order, but I rather hoped that you might have noticed what the problem was.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I ask the member to withdraw that remark.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: If the cap fits, wear it. I withdraw and apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. The member needs just to withdraw that remark, with no other comments.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I withdraw and apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Thank you.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: One thing that cannot stand in this House is the perpetuating of an argument that simply is not the truth. Really, what this legislation aims to do is to free up Māori to be able to look at a model—a new vehicle, if you like—to be able to go forward. That is all it is. It is not compulsory; it is voluntary.

Should Māori want to amend the charter to better fit and suit their needs, there is provision in the bill to do that. There are transitional provisions that enable their current entities to move into a waka umanga type of vehicle. Perhaps the best opportunity here is the opportunity to better reflect where the benefits of any sound economic development model should go, and that is back to the collective, back to the iwi, and this bill provides for that. It is not about shareholders. It is about ensuring that one’s collective aspirations can be advanced. It is about modernising opportunities for Māori. It is about ensuring that they are better able and geared to enter into economic development opportunities, which we will see will advantage not just Māori but this nation.

I think that all parties in this House should support this bill’s referral to the select committee, if for no other reason than to have a very robust discussion about the way in which Māori will continue to advance their interests for the benefit of all New Zealanders. I commend the bill to the select committee.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) : I will be brief, because I think the position of the National Party is reasonably clear. We will not be supporting this legislation.

I begin my speech by referring to what the Rt Hon Winston Peters said on 19 December 1990 when he was the Minister of Māori Affairs and was introducing the Runanga Iwi Act Repeal Bill. He said: “Māoridom today needs policies based on the future and not on some dream-time imagery in the minds of cultural fellow travellers and social engineers.” All I would say is “Amen to that.” [Interruption] It is a shame that Mr Donnelly does not understand that as he lapses, in the closing stages of this career, into political correctness.

National opposes this legislation for a number of reasons. First, we ask: why the urgency? We received a briefing on this bill some months ago, so why the rush at the end of the year? A very important question—and one should always ask it in relation to any legislation—is whether the legislation is necessary. Labour Ministers never stop to ask this basic question, nor do they ever ask themselves whether a particular issue is already covered by a statute.

• Debate interrupted.