Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Māori Affairs) : I move that the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill be now read a third time. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I cannot hear the Minister who is taking the call. The Speaker is on his feet, and the Hon Annette King, the Hon David Cunliffe, and the Hon Trevor Mallard are all carrying on a discussion. That is not acceptable. I could not hear the Hon Dr Pita Sharples take his call. I call him now.

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā tātou e te Whare e huihuinga i tēnei rangi.

[Greetings to you, Mr Speaker. And greetings to us assembled here in this House this day.]

I move that the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill be now read a third time. This is an extremely significant day in the life of this Parliament. It is a time to honour all those who have placed the issue of the Māori Trustee firmly on the political agenda for decades, long before we came to this House. [Interruption] I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I cannot even hear myself!

Mr SPEAKER: Now look, I say that senior members the Hon Maurice Williamson and the Hon Tau Henare were both interjecting when the Hon Pita Sharples, their own ministerial colleague, raised the point of order—

Hon Parekura Horomia: Disgraceful—Shh!

Mr SPEAKER: —and the Hon Parekura Horomia also. I do not know what members had for lunch today, but could they please—

Hon Member: Tories!

Mr SPEAKER: I say to the honourable member, let us just settle things down and actually treat this House—I ask members to treat this House—with some respect.

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: I move that the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Te Ururoa Flavell: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt my co-leader the Minister of Māori Affairs, but he was probably about 15 to 30 seconds into his speech while all that discussion was going on. Unfortunately, most of the members missed out on an awesome beginning to the speech of my leader.

Mr SPEAKER: We will reset the clock.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Thank you very much.

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: Ā, kia ora tātau e huihui mai nei i roto i tēnei Whare. Tēnā tātau.

[And greetings to us assembled here in this House. Greetings to us.]

I move, yet again, That the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill be now read a third time. This is an extremely significant day in the life of this Parliament. It is a time to honour all those who have placed the issue of the Māori Trustee firmly on the political agenda for decades, long before we came to this House. I acknowledge the challenges of the Hēnare and Wright review in 1989, of the Charters, Sykes, and Nīkora review of 1991—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I cannot tell whether it is about Auckland things or what is happening down in that corner of the Chamber, but we are trying to focus on the Minister of Māori Affairs, and National members appear to be having a sub-caucus meeting down there.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for that. Yes, conversations will be held in the lobbies, not within the House.

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: I acknowledge the challenges of the Hēnare and Wright review in 1989, of the Charters, Sykes, and Nīkora review of 1991, and of the Māori Affairs Committee report of 2001. I think today of all the calls from beneficial owners who have been moved to place their submissions before Parliament, seeking to reform the role of the Māori Trustee. That has been a long time coming, since the establishment of the function in 1921. Moving to more recent times, I want to recognise the work of the previous Minister for his role in the preliminary stages of this bill—tēnā koe, Parekura.

But this bill is significant for one reason: this bill represents the first bill presented by an independent Māori Party. It makes for fascinating analysis to consider the passage of history that is marked this week in Parliament. Five years ago yesterday, Parliament passed the first reading of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill, and today the Minister of Māori Affairs, from the party that arose out of opposition to that bill, now stands to deliver on legislation.

This is a significant bill. It establishes the Māori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation, an aspiration that many people have had before this bill took shape. The bill changes the way that payments on money held in trust in the common fund administered by the Māori Trustee are determined. The bill is supported by funding increases for services to the Māori Trustee, which are already in place. These are all achievements that we are proud to deliver on. Delivering on expectations is a commitment that we take very seriously, and we realise that these expectations, of course, have a very long whakapapa to them.

During the bill’s second reading, members of this House spoke of the importance of the role of the Māori Trustee. One of the legacies of the long, sad history of past Government Māori land policies is the ongoing need for a Māori Trustee. We are very aware of the levels of concern that tangata whenua have expressed over the years about the different roles the Māori Trustee has been required to play in the management, and at times the acquisition, of Māori land. We acknowledge, too, that there are still some situations in which the beneficial owners have had considerable difficulty in being able to exercise due care and regard for the protection of their whenua. Some Māori land is so fragmented that the separate blocks are not economic. Land may be isolated, with no road access. The owners may have had to move away from it long ago, in search of work and a roof over their heads. None the less, this land continues to have huge cultural and spiritual significance to whānau and to wider groupings. Toi te kupu, toi te mana, toi te whenua—these three: language, prestige, and land are the foundations of te Ao Māori, of our past, our present, and our future.

The responsibility of the Māori Trustee brings with it, then, the investment that tangata whenua place in preserving the important connections between people and the land—between the tāngata and the whenua. There are some cases where the current owners may not be known, or may not be able to be found. Many of our people have lost their knowledge of their connection to the land of their ancestors. The demands of the modern world may have driven them to cities in New Zealand and overseas. So I stand here today, pleased to support the role of the Māori Trustee in ensuring that those sacred bonds are upheld. The Crown will fund the stand-alone Māori Trustee for a range of functions. Those include finding the owners of the land held in trust, and, where practicable, helping owners to move towards managing their own land.

One of the themes that emerged from the Māori economic workshop that I held in January was the real potential for Māori, and for New Zealand, if Māori assets were better utilised. This is one of the areas that were identified for further work following the Prime Minister’s summit on employment. Making sure that the Māori Trustee is a strong and viable organisation is one aspect of that approach.

In 2007, the Māori Trustee acted as trustee or agent for over 188,000 owners and over 111,000 hectares of Māori land. Following the conclusion of the review of the Māori Trustee, funding for the Māori Trustee was increased last year. This was the beginning of the end of a long and complex process that began nearly two decades ago and has included looking at many options for the Māori Trustee. Today, it is up to all of us in this House to finally bring this process to an end.

This bill will make the Māori Trustee a stand-alone organisation, able to focus firmly on providing high-quality services to Māori. The bill will put in place reporting arrangements for public funding. This will involve including the Māori Trustee as an organisation on schedule 4 of the Public Finance Act 1989. These arrangements reflect the Māori Trustee’s independence, while providing transparency and accountability for public money.

As part of the shift to becoming a stand-alone organisation, the Māori Trustee will need to be appointed in a new way. At present, acting as the Māori Trustee is an office conferred on an employee of Te Puni Kōkiri. Under the bill, the Māori Trustee will be appointed by the Minister of Māori Affairs—and I am very aware of the serious responsibility this places upon me, and of my responsibilities to beneficial owners. In order to provide continuity for the new organisation, the bill provides that the current Māori Trustee will become the new Māori Trustee for a term of up to 5 years. Employees of the Māori Trust Office will also be transferred to the new organisation. I believe this provides certainty for staff and continuity for clients.

The bill removes the potential for a differential between what the Māori Trustee earns from money held in trust in the common fund, and what the Māori Trustee is required to pay beneficial owners. Under the new system, account holders will get in returns what the Māori Trustee receives from the investment of the common fund, less a management fee where applicable. That is a key part of the bill. It means that the return received by the owners of Māori land that is administered by the Māori Trustee will better reflect the returns received by the Māori Trustee. The Māori Trustee will also be required to report to account holders on these matters. The Maori Trust Office Regulations 1954 will be amended to be consistent with the changes set out in this bill.

I want to place it on the public record that the reforms set out in this bill were widely supported during consultation in 2007. The bill was also unanimously supported by select committees. The bill implements much-needed and long-awaited changes to the Maori Trustee Act 1953. Once again, I would like to thank all the many people and committees who have contributed to this exercise, so we could reach this stage. The bill has attracted much debate throughout all of its stages, and most of it has been very supportive, complimentary, and helpful.

Today we will pass this bill, and we will have a stand-alone Māori Trustee. It is therefore with much pleasure that I commend this bill to the House.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti) : E tika ana i runga i te tū nei ki te mihi kau ana ki a koe e te Minita Māori. Tēnā koe. Tēnā koe mō tō kaha ki te mau ake i te tino take nei i tēnei wā. Nō reira, tēnā koe.

[It is apt as I rise to take this call that I acknowledge you, the Minister of Māori Affairs. Greetings to you. Congratulations on your efforts to date in bringing this very important matter before us. Well done.]

Labour certainly supports the introduction of the changes to establish the Māori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation, and we understand the importance of amending provisions relating to the Māori Trustee’s organisational form and financial accountability. At present, the Māori Trustee is an office conferred on an employee of Te Puni Kōkiri, but that is soon to change. The Māori Trustee Amendment Bill will establish the Māori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation separate from Te Puni Kōkiri. This will underline the independence that the people have sought for the Māori Trustee for generations. It is to ensure that the Māori Trustee is able to carry out the exact fiduciary responsibilities of the position.

The bill provides for robust accountability for public funding, by including the Māori Trustee in schedule 4 of the Public Finance Act 1989. This will have the effect of applying appropriate reporting and other accountability provisions for the Māori Trustee in respect of funding provided by the Crown, while maintaining the Māori Trustee’s independence. For years the Crown has financed certain activities, and there will be a clear differentiation now about where that ends and where the private aspects of the Māori Trustee start. The reporting requirements will include preparing an annual report, with a statement of service performance. The bill provides that the Māori Trustee will be appointed by the Minister of Māori Affairs—which I support totally—for a renewable term of up to 5 years. Further amendments will enable the new stand-alone Māori Trustee to employ his or her own staff, and to appoint a deputy Māori Trustee.

In the sense of forward thinking, this bill is about modernising and moving forward an important organisation that manages a very, very sizable amount of Māori assets. The bill makes changes to the way in which interest on money held in trust in the common fund is determined. The bill provides that the Māori Trustee must pay the amount earned by the trustee in interest less a management fee; that provision is quite specific. The Māori Trustee will be required to review, on a quarterly basis, the amounts paid in the 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 the trustee’s accountability for public funding, while protecting and furthering the interests of the trustee’s beneficiaries.

The real question asks whether this bill goes far enough. There are issues relevant to Te Ture Whenua legislation—the second part of which I tried to bring alongside this bill—and I again encourage the Minister of Māori Affairs to re-look at that and see what relevance it has in relation to his wish to build economic surety for our people.

There was a good turnout at the consultations we held all around the country. There have been several consultations with Māori in relation to this bill, on the proposal for the stand-alone Māori Trustee. Wider discussion emerged at hui about the possibility of the Māori Trustee taking more of a leadership role to promote Māori development. I know there is the opinion that Māori can be left alone to do their own thing, and that needs to be encouraged. But there are some fundamentals within what the Māori Trustee works with in relation to succession planning, through all that multiplicity of assets. A whole lot of assets are not succeeded to—firstly, because people do not care to claim them. It can also be because the assets are too small or because the people have moved off somewhere and are hard to find. My learned colleague Tau Henare suggested the other evening that we got Baycorp and the Inland Revenue Department to find out where those owners were; I am not too sure about that.

More seriously, it is really, really important to understand the differentiation between a customary asset, which is perceived as an equitable asset, and those freehold titles of Pākehā and other people. At the end of the day the accumulated strength, in the sense of small shareholdings coming together, is offset—and penalised at times because Māori have to pay market rates on the land. They pay the maximum for the valuation, which is really geared around the saleability of property, but the majority of those lands are never sold—never sold. That is an unfairness. I listened to Mr Hide formulating new ideas on the super-city council this afternoon, but this is a very, very serious problem for Māori because the productivity of those lands is huge in areas like Gisborne, Hawke’s Bay, Wairarapa, Bay of Plenty—

Hon John Carter: Northland.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: —and Northland. They really add to the export numbers, yet they are penalised for being that valuable asset. I say to Mr Hide that I hope the super-city council will take a better look at that issue and be fairer. I applaud the super-city move, and if we get the three Māori seats and his sort of advice to make sure that that asset is recognised, that is a good start.

Hon Member: Only three?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: If there are more seats, then we will be more appreciative. Both the National Party, and its new ally the Māori Party, need to put into action the call from our people to encourage the Māori Trustee to take more of a leadership role in Māori development. Māori are feeling the sharp edges of a recession, and some of us cannot chortle about those of our people who struggle—those on a lower income or with assets not well used. I want to say again that the valuation on those lands managed by the Māori Trustee is geared against saleability, and that the majority of those lands will never be sold. Maybe it has come into the minds of Māori to sell something to get something else. Valuations have gone up on other properties, which are sold now at ridiculous prices, but our people get penalised. As I have said, now, more than ever, Māori need support.

You know, at the end of the day this bill is very important to Māori, and I commend all the officials from Te Puni Kōkiri and the Māori Trust Office. I commend the Māori Affairs Committee and I commend the Minister of Māori Affairs for having the courage to take this through. I further commend him to be seriously forward-looking and make sure he has a look at the second part that we were working on; I would be more than happy to help him do that.

The main change to the bill concerns the termination of the appointment of the Māori Trustee. As was said formerly, he was previously appointed by the chief executive officer of Te Puni Kōkiri; the Minister of Māori Affairs now has that responsibility. And the operation of the Māori Trustee’s account is a very, very important part. When there are accumulated funds and nobody knows where to send them, someone has to use a clear, forward-thinking mindset to get a solution generated; whether it is for those beneficiaries in iwi clusters or in rohe clusters, someone needs to make a move. The funds should not be left in the account just for someone to guess what should be done with them.

Section 19 of the Māori Trustee Act 1953 provided that the Māori Trustee’s account had to be operated only by cheques or other instruments signed by authorised officers. Section 21 of the Māori Trustee Act 1953 stated that the Māori Trustee gave authority to officers to sign cheques or other instruments. So all the issues such as that one have needed to be modernised and moved forward. As for money held in the common fund and invested in the fund, the select committee has recommended that the term “distributable income” replace the term “interest”, in clause 11 of the bill. The Māori Trustee Act 1953 had required that interest earned from the investment of money in the common fund was paid into the general purposes fund.

I certainly pay due respect to all of those staff members and the people who have given loyally to the Māori Trust Office—the management, and those of our people who have passed on. That office is one of the most tangible things that we still maintain and have control of, like our language. The land is our land, generally—the lot that was not flogged—and we can do something about the stuff we have now. There is modernisation, in the sense of ensuring that we lift the asset value to its capacity, but the main thing about the usage is that we can trim the operation down, ensure that owners are found, and ensure the assets are utilised. I will not say “better” utilised, because a lot of Māori assets are well maintained and well managed at the moment. The myth that everything is in scrub and bracken is starting to fade away. Our people are capable, and our people want to compete in this modern world, but—bear with me—I say again that it is important that the differentiations here need to be managed. But this is a good bill; I commend the Minister of Māori Affairs again, and the officials.

Hon TAU HENARE (National) : I too congratulate the Hon Pita Sharples, the Hon Parekura Horomia, the officials from Te Puni Kōkiri, and the Māori Affairs Committee of the last Parliament. The committee was chaired by Dave Hereora, and two former members of that committee, Pita Paraone and Mahara Okeroa, are no longer here. I congratulate them on their work in the select committee part of the process of the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill. Once a bill has been introduced, select committees are the engine room of Parliament. Select committee members get to hear the submissions and all the talk by the officials. So I congratulate the members who sat on the Māori Affairs Committee in the last Parliament.

I want to say to two Hēnares who have been part of the last 50-odd years of reviewing the Māori Trust Office—my cousin Denese Hēnare and my uncle Bob Hēnare—that it was a job well done. Bob Hēnare was an unsung hero and, sadly, is not with us any more. More important, his real name was Mita Robert Hoturoa Hēnare. He was the first Māori to be the general manager—as we said in those old days—of a Government department outside of the Department of Māori Affairs. He was, in fact, general manager of the New Zealand Railways Corporation.

To get back to the bill, I say that when it is passed, the Māori Trustee will become a stand-alone organisation. It will have better accountability in terms of the beneficiaries for whom it is looking after interest. It will be more transparent than it has been, and that has to be good for any organisation, whether or not it is a Māori organisation. The bill is the beginning of a forward-looking Māori Trustee. It tidies up a few things, and will not be a panacea for all of Māoridom’s woes. With all due respect to those who have shareholdings in Māori land interests, I make the point that a lot of us do not have any. A lot of Māoridom, like myself, who live and breathe the urban lifestyle, are not beneficial owners of any pieces of Māori land. I make this point too: I am not crying over it.

Hon David Parker: The politics of envy!

Hon TAU HENARE: Oh, no. There is no envy in those politics, I say to my friend. Only somebody who was born and bred in the streets of Ōtara and now happily lives in west Auckland knows that it is no good being envious of somebody who has something that he or she does not have.

We must now concentrate on getting the benefits that have accrued over the many years of the Māori Trust Office to those who rightfully own them. I say to the House that if we dare move to that old, worn-out idea of a Māori bank, then we are in trouble, especially if we propose to use the money that is in the Māori Trust Office or the money that has accrued to the Māori Trustee. I am still of the belief that that money belongs to those beneficiaries and/or their families. So before we go down the track of thinking that it is amazing what we could do with this $35 million clump of money, let us go down the track of trying everything to find those beneficiaries and their families. Although my colleague the Hon Parekura Horomia, the previous Minister of Māori Affairs, pooh-poohs my idea of using Baycorp and the Inland Revenue Department—

Hon Darren Hughes: So do the Tories.

Hon TAU HENARE: No, they do not. We have not tried Baycorp or the Inland Revenue Department. It is no good to pooh-pooh the idea if over the last 40 years we have not tried it. Let us have another look at it. Currently, all we do is expect the Māori Trust Office to come up with a thick book that is full of names, which we then drop on the local rūnanga office, expecting those people whose names are in the book to walk in off the streets and say: “Well, my name’s Harry Walker and I’m here for my five grand.” It does not work like that; it will never work like that. As long as we continue this outdated, outmoded way of trying to hunt people down in order to give them a benefit—to give them what they deserve—we will never win.

I think the passing of this bill is just a precursor to some exciting stuff down the road. It is an opportunity for the Māori Party and the Minister of Māori Affairs to lay claim once and for all to a real bright future. We are here to help him on that journey—not just some of us, but all of us.

I want to take a little time to talk about the gestation of this bill, because I think I need to put it into perspective. We cannot all just stand up here and lay platitudes at the feet of the present Minister of Māori Affairs, the previous Minister of Māori Affairs, and the previous, previous, previous Minister of Māori Affairs.

Hon Mita Ririnui: Three times removed!

Hon TAU HENARE: Yes—the Minister of Māori Affairs thrice removed.

This bill originally appeared in this House with another part, and that was where the Minister, or the Government, would take part of the spoils of the beneficiaries—albeit the interest on the spoils—and put it into a development fund. The idea may have been laudable, but the problem was that it did not carry the country with it. The problem was that there was not a full round of consultation. I think that that part of the original bill, the rest of which became the bill we are passing today, was a ruse for the Minister to get his hands on the $35 million. As I said, it was a laudable idea, but it is maybe not the right time.

Again I say that the passing of this bill is just a precursor to something that may be very, very exciting. There may be something we can do to give back to the beneficiaries what they truly deserve and what they can rightly call their own—that is, in any business parlance, a dividend that they should get back as, I suppose, recompense for all the years their land interests have been used.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) : I am pleased to rise to speak in the third reading debate of the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill and to reiterate the comments of my colleague and previous Minister of Māori Affairs, the Hon Parekura Horomia, that we support the bill.

I want to pick up where Mr Henare left off when he was explaining some of the background in terms of Labour’s work on this legislation. It was always with a view in mind that we had two bills introduced in tandem with the broader objective of trying to improve and accelerate Māori development. That is a very important point. Mr Henare himself gave recognition that this bill is not the panacea for all the woes that exist within Māoridom, and I reiterate that. The context of trying to move the Māori Trustee office as a stand-alone entity should exist within an environment that is more conducive to accelerating Māori development. There are no two ways about that. People who have been following this debate could be forgiven for thinking that there was some confusion in the Committee stage about the broad parameters of our debate, because, certainly, Labour members were continually putting forward a futuristic context for how the Māori Trustee office could contribute to Māori development, and we were pilloried by the Government for that very perspective. But we still hold true to that.

The intent of introducing this legislation was to enable the Māori Trustee office to be a stand-alone entity—which was a very good move—to increase transparency and accountability for the distribution of retained earnings, and to look at how management fees were being apportioned. Those were all fine things to be achieved—including the provision for a deputy trustee—all good moves within this bill. But—and this is a very important but—it should be viewed within the context of other connecting bits of work to help improve and accelerate Māori development aspirations. Parekura Horomia, as the previous Minister of this portfolio, well identified that as a natural consequence of dealing with the issue of trying to find shareholders the solution may in part lie in reviewing Te Ture Whenua Maori Act. It may in part lie with the Māori Trustee’s office itself improving its opportunity to identify shareholders who have continued to remain unidentified. A part solution was raised by Tau Henare. He suggested we should look at Baycorp’s register to identify some of these unidentified shareholders. But I suggest to the Minister that an iwi register could be just as useful. Some of the reasons why many of these owners are not identified is that they have to succeed to their land and there is a cost to go through in that process. Is it worth it for them to go through that whole process? So we have to make those connections again. Some of the solution could perhaps lie in reviewing Te Ture Whenua Maori Act to see how it could better remove some of the impediments.

I also want to draw on some of the issues that were raised throughout the debate about the retained earnings of the Māori Trustee. Again, a lot of criticism came towards Labour for proposing that rather than just letting that sum sit there in abeyance, not being utilised at all, we should use it to accelerate Māori development. Let us utilise it to accelerate Māori development aspiration, pretty much in the same way that support was given to establishing the Kōhanga Reo Trust and the Poutama Māori Business Trust, and we have now seen through the passage of time they have had made a significant contribution in their respective areas to advance the aspirations of Māori to lift their opportunities and to support that broader ambition that we certainly have on this side of the House to improve Māori development. It is a good ambition and it requires a number of strategies to achieve that outcome. Again, I support all the endorsements that have been reiterated in the House for the hard work and effort of officials, of the clerk of the Māori Affairs Committee, and of the two Ministers involved in stewarding this bill from its inception to its final passage. Again, I urge all members in this House to view this as just one small step in a number of steps that have to be undertaken with a degree of urgency if we are really to arrest some of the difficulties that exist amongst many of our communities in developing unproductive land, and being able to lift and support our governance structures, governance training, and governance responsibilities of those structures in our communities, enabling greater partnering opportunities with the Māori Trustee office and other iwi entities, and the like, of being able to look at some of the impediments on unproductive Māori land.

I raised through the Committee stage the fine work that the Minister of Māori Affairs’ ministry is undertaking around the issues of valuation and the rating of Māori land, which I hope will help inform better the current Minister of Local Government, because there are inequities in that process. Sadly, I was not in the portfolio long enough to try to deal with that. The Minister already knows some of that history, but commencing this very important work within Te Puni Kōkiri with a clear framework that identifies the impediments to developing some of the lands that we are talking about, I think, will make a useful contribution to ongoing policy development in local government. I hope the Minister of Local Government takes account of some of those inequities, because on the issue of governance he has no regard at all for the contribution that Māori can make at a governance level to the quality of decision making on councils.

The real challenge is that local government is an area that affects the everyday lives of people. Māori make a significant contribution to the quality of life in many communities. Māori want to ensure that they retain the opportunity to have a role at the decision-making table. Auckland is a good test case, but, more important, councils recognise that it is probably better to have unproductive lands, many of which are in Māori shareholding, utilised rather than not. That is why, if we look at some of the best practice that exists in councils, policies in the area of rating of Māori land have looked to strategies more conducive to development rather than to constrictive strategies, which get low land shareholding. So there are a number of solutions that lie within the wider ambit of the portfolio of the Minister of Māori Affairs. I certainly would endorse any of the work that he undertakes in that regard, because it is all very important.

I would like to touch on the Supplementary Order Paper that was introduced as a result of the contribution that I made at the Committee stage. That was around the issue of clarity in terms of delegations between the Māori Trustee and the deputy trustee, certainly in the situation where—for the unlikely or unfortunate reason—the Māori Trustee may be suspended, so that there is some continuity in terms of the role with the office. I acknowledge the Supplementary Order Paper and think that that is a fine amendment to stop political interference in some of the important functions that are undertaken by the role of the Māori Trustee.

Finally, I reiterate and endorse the comments of my colleague Parekura Horomia on this issue, which he knows a lot about—I think he could have spoken for another 10 minutes. I commend to this House the ambitious aspiration that we have that the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill and a future bill that supports Māori development can be something that we all find a common ground on and debate robustly in this House in the future. Kia ora koutou.

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) : I am taking a call to speak briefly on the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill. The Green Party is voting for this bill. We support proper clarification of the role of the Māori Trustee, and recognise the fraught historical and contemporary issues that tangata whenua have experienced around structures created by a colonising Government. We hope this bill will be a positive part of the jigsaw of justice, as opposed to a confusing status quo.

As a Pākehā on the outside of this issue, but with a commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, I am supporting my colleague Metiria Turei’s view on the development of this bill. I would like to say one thing, inspired by mana whenua. Concepts and structures such as trustee, incorporation, land court, and beneficiary have been used to disenfranchise tangata whenua since the 1800s. The assumption is that Western instruments can liberate indigenous people from their oppression, but, in effect, they have operated to destroy collectivity and hapūtanga to benefit the few, and alienate the resources. As Moana Jackson and others have said, the name of names is the mother of all things. So with some apprehension we vote yes to this bill.

PAUL QUINN (National) : Firstly, I take the opportunity in this call to express my condolences and the condolences of the 2008 fraternity and the whole of the National Party to the Parata family. As members probably know, Hekia’s mother has passed away. Her tangi is taking place as we speak, and her burial will be on Saturday. So I think it is appropriate and important that we acknowledge that sad occasion.

I, like some of the previous speakers, congratulate the Minister of Māori Affairs on expediting the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill, on showing his stewardship in his new role, and on the leadership he is bringing to his portfolio. Although I also take this opportunity to acknowledge the previous Minister, my friend and colleague Parekura Horomia, I say that, sadly, he was unable to expedite the passage of this bill at the same pace that the new Minister has.

I will just explain the sort of pressure that my friend and colleague, the previous Minister, worked under. In preparing for this debate, I thought it appropriate that I go back to the first reading debate and Committee stage of this bill to make sure that I was fully informed as to how it came to this stage. It was interesting for me to note that this bill was introduced by Dr Cullen. He overrode the then Minister of Māori Affairs, took the floor, and introduced and moved this bill. I felt sorry for my friend and colleague because he worked under the enormous shadow of Dr Cullen, as we saw again and again with, for example, the foreshore and seabed legislation. Even the negotiations with Māori over the emissions trading scheme were led by Dr Cullen. That was the big burden that my friend and colleague Parekura Horomia had to work under. It is great that he can now come before us, released of that burden, and be able to show his true leadership. He is able to contribute much more and represent Māori in greater capacity.

The second point I make, in terms of doing my research for this third reading where I canvassed the summary and the issues as to how we got here, is that, as both the previous speakers for the Opposition have alluded to, this bill was part of a much larger piece of work—a much larger bill. As part of that bill, the working title Māori Business Aotearoa New Zealand was introduced. The problem was that when the bill went to the Māori Affairs Committee, Māori Business Aotearoa New Zealand was exposed as being a little piggy bank. The sort of moneys that had accumulated in the Māori Trustee were going to be taken and used. I think we heard the phrase “party hacks” bandied around a couple of days ago. Well, there was no doubt in my mind that the Government of the day had every intention of creating this little piggy bank under the name and guise of Māori Business Aotearoa New Zealand and putting a whole lot of party hacks on its board—and I can think of some of them: Wayne Butson and Gregory Fortuin. Gregory Fortuin is on the boards of the Families Commission, Crown Forestry Rental Trust, and New Zealand Post. I tell members that every time I see this guy, Gregory Fortuin, he is mana-munching around the marae and the hui, trying to get to the front row. He never speaks, but he loves getting on to the front row and doing a bit of mana-munching.

The important thing about this bill is that it is focused on the Māori Trustee and its operation. It is not focused on creating piggy banks for our friends, lackeys, and hacks. The first principle to remember is that this is someone else’s money. It is not a slush fund. The Māori Trustee has accumulated earnings and accumulated cash that belong to specific beneficiaries. Under any public trust law—or any law of any land—money belongs to the beneficiaries. Because of the outstanding contributions of the Māori Party members and the National Party members on the select committee, the committee was able to pull back the purpose of the bill to the true fundamentals: to drag the Māori Trustee into the modern 21st century.

That was the fundamental purpose of this bill, and that is what the select committee said. It said that we should just focus on modernising the Māori Trustee, and that we should give it the capability of electronic transfers so that it does not have only the ability to sign handwritten cheques. The Māori Trustee was almost using a quill and blotting paper, as that was how it used to operate. But the select committee focused on modernising the bill and dragging its operations into the 21st century. That was first principles, that is what the select committee did, and that is what this Government will do in passing this bill. That is what the Minister wants: he wants to modernise the Māori Trustee so that it can focus on things like finding beneficiaries, administrating, getting better money, and getting better returns for the people.

I agree with the previous speakers from the Opposition benches that Māori economic development is important. Aspirations are important; we are at one on that. We talked about it throughout this debate on this bill, and through the first reading—not that I was here, but I read about it—the Committee stage, and the second reading. It is important. We will deal with that with the passage of time under the great stewardship and leadership of the current Minister of Māori Affairs, who will take us forward and bring growth to Māori.

For this bill, we need to focus only on the issues. As a consequence, the bill is in two parts. The first part deals with the operational framework to take the Māori Trustee into the modern 21st century. There are clauses around independence, disclosures, and reporting. My friend and colleague the Hon Parekura Horomia has canvassed a lot of those issues. But he forgot the second part of the bill, which allows for the transitional arrangements.

It is with great pleasure that I offer my full support, and join with my National colleagues—and, hopefully, our Labour friends on the Opposition benches—in pushing through the Minister’s first bill. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker Barker.

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Labour) : Otirā, kai te Minita tēnā koe. Kia piki te ora ki tō hoa rangatira. Kai te tautoko ake i ēnā whakaaro ki tērā o wā tātau kuia e takoto mai rā i tōna marae, tōna atāmira hoki. Me te mihi anō rā ki tōna whānau ki a Hēkia mā, a Herewini mā otirā, tōna whānau nui tonu. Tēnei mātau kai tēnei taha o te Whare e tautoko ake ana i ēnā whakaaro.

[Greetings indeed to you, the Minister. May your good lady’s health continue to improve. I endorse those tributes to that particular kuia of ours lying in state on her courtyard and her stage. Condolences to her family—Hekia, Herewini, and others—and, indeed, to her extended family at large. We on this side of the House endorse the tributes expressed.]

I take this opportunity to acknowledge the passing of a very, very dear lady from Ngāti Porou, the mother of Hekia Parata. She is currently lying in state at her marae in Ruatōria. I thank the previous speaker, Paul Quinn, for raising the matter. Certainly, we on this side of the House acknowledge her passing.

I also congratulate the Minister of Māori Affairs on supporting the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill and bringing it through the Committee stage to the third reading. The Committee stage was very interesting. Every speaker who stood in this House highlighted the need for change and identified particular benefits within the bill, which will ensure that the Māori Trust Office is a stand-alone organisation headed by the Māori Trustee. The bill includes all the technical amendments that are required to ensure robust, transparent, and accountable financial management systems. Also, Part 2 ensures that any staff of the Māori Trust Office do not undergo any negativity because of the change. In fact, from what I can understand from the legislation, the proposal, and the staff of the Māori Trust Office, there is no concern in that particular area.

Also during the Committee stage, interestingly enough, the former Minister of Māori Affairs thrice removed raised a number of issues for the current Minister of Māori Affairs. Those issues were also put before the previous Minister of Māori Affairs, my colleague the Hon Parekura Horomia, who introduced this bill to the House. Amongst those challenges was one to go out and find who the undeclared beneficiaries of Māori Trustee assets are. It is not a simple, straightforward undertaking. Tau Henare said we could get Bay Collection Agency to do it, or we could borrow Inland Revenue Department staff, who seem to be able to find anyone, anywhere, at any time. It does not work in this case, because, simply, the issues of unidentified beneficiaries that the Māori Trust Office has to deal with are intergenerational. They have been around for decades.

Unlike the Hon Tau Henare, I do not have a grandfather, father, uncle, or auntie who was a former employee of the Māori Trust Office or the Department of Māori Affairs. Like Paul Quinn over there, my father, uncles, and aunties were farmers. They were people who toiled the land. They were out on the land every day. They entrusted their undeclared estates to the Māori Trustee Office with absolute comfort. Well, that was about 100 years ago, and times change. The needs of Māori people change. My colleague the Hon Nanaia Mahuta highlighted what those changes need to be in terms of our taking a huge step forward. As Tau Henare said, this bill is not the panacea for Māori woes; in fact, it is nothing more than a band-aid. It is a band-aid for a hakihaki that has been bleeding for a very, very long time. It brings us into the 21st century.

Māori around the country who were part of the consultation round acknowledged the need for change. They acknowledged the need for change and for a higher level of transparency in terms of their being able to monitor the use of these assets. Some of them are undeclared in terms of who the rightful beneficiaries are; some beneficiaries know that their assets are there but they choose to leave them there, and I can name a number of people in that situation. Several members of my family are in that situation.

My colleague the Hon Nanaia Mahuta alluded to the need to take a step forward from where we are now in terms of the Māori Trust Office. I know that my whanaunga from Ngāti Awa—actually, he is my tuakana—in his contribution to the House said that we did not want to set up a fund where everybody has his or her nose in the trough. Well, what a sad way to feel about Māori development; it is a very sad way to feel about Māori development. That may have happened in the time that he recalls, but I can tell him that under the previous Minister of Māori Affairs it did not happen, and under the current Minister of Māori Affairs it does not happen. The worn-out track that certain people from certain communities trod over a number of years to the office of the Minister of Māori Affairs, with their hands out and their briefcases open, was shut long ago. Now, when those people enter the office of the Minister of Māori Affairs, the simple question is “What have you got?”. They are asked what their contribution is and what the benefits for Māori people across the country are. Those people did not get any time with the previous Minister of Māori Affairs, and they do not get any time with the current Minister of Māori Affairs, unless they are very clear about what their contributions are. I do not want to name those people; obviously, some people here know who they are, but let us not go down that track.

I am glad to hear that the Minister of Māori Affairs is 100 percent in support of this bill. I am very glad to hear that, and I hope that in the near future he will bring off the shelf and give priority to the proposal to establish a Māori economic development arm of the Māori Trustee Office. Equally important, I hope he adopts the same attitude that he has adopted this afternoon in this House when it comes to Treaty settlements. The Minister of Māori Affairs is in a very strong position to make sure that all the hurdles and encumbrances currently affecting the passage of settlement legislation through this House are removed. He has the opportunity to make a valuable contribution by ensuring that years and years of negotiations and resource commitment are not wasted. As my colleague Nanaia Mahuta said, this bill when enacted should complement a lot of positive activities that are currently in place for Māori. As a former Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, I find that approach to be—and declare it to be—a very high priority.

She also mentioned that over a number of years—and it had been mentioned by speakers during the Committee stage—very strong Māori organisations had been established using funds from the Māori Trust Office. That did not appear to be a concern at the time, because Māori around the country knew that it was time to make a move and time to take a step forward. Our Māori language being used on our marae, in our homes and kura kaupapa, and right through the education system started there. Let us not forget that. Let us not call these funds a slush fund when our people—everybody—made such a sacrifice to make sure that the kōhanga reo movement, the Poutama Māori Business Trust, and all the other initiatives were a huge success. But let us not stop there; let us keep going.

As Tau Henare said, we can see whether we can find out who these beneficiaries are, and after a period of time maybe we can tell ourselves: “Well, let us use the fund to promote Māori economic development.” The problem with Tau’s statement is that we have been trying to find these people for 100 years. When is enough enough? When can we sit down and say to ourselves: “Let us trust ourselves. Let us trust our people. Let us make the move. Let us take the risk and go forward—no more looking back, no more putting down our people, no more ngau tuarā and all that stuff. Let us throw it out; we don’t need it.”? I say to the Minister of Māori Affairs that we on this side of the House have made a commitment to work with him on these particular matters, in order to go forward. That commitment stands, but I will say it again: we have very, very high expectations and standards, which is what our people out there expect from us.

That is my contribution to the debate on the third reading of the bill. I must say that I do support it—I do not want anyone saying that I did not say that! Once again, I thank the members of the 2008 Māori Affairs Committee: the then chairman of the Māori Affairs Committee, David Hereora, who is no longer in this House; the Hon Mahara Okeroa, who is no longer in this House; Pita Paraone, who is no longer in this House; the Hon Georgina Te Heuheu; and the Hon Tau Henare. I thank all the officials who guided us through this very difficult legislation. I also thank all of those who came to the committee with their submissions to express their views for and against certain aspects of the bill. In closing, I say that there is no doubt that this bill has been thoroughly examined.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) : I will begin by adding my message of condolence to the Pārata whānau at this time.

I am absolutely delighted that the whip saw fit to allocate me a call on the third reading of the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill. I guess it is through opportunities like this that new MPs like me can come to understand and contribute to the debates on such a wide policy range. I am certain that a great many members—and we have heard from many of them—are far more qualified than I am to comment on the merits of this legislation. Nevertheless, I will do my best to make a contribution to the discourse with Hipkins-like enthusiasm.

The Māori Trustee Amendment Bill had its genesis in the Māori Trustee and Māori Development Amendment Bill, and it had two intentions: firstly, the establishment of the Māori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation, and, secondly, to propose arrangements of the statutory corporation to further Māori economic development. As has been elucidated to some degree by my colleague Mr Quinn, that part of the initial bill was a bit contentious and, in fact, created quite some debate when the larger bill had its first reading. I think at that time my colleague the Hon Tau Henare said that perhaps the bill should be called the “Māori Trustee Theft Bill”, so it was clearly quite contentious legislation. Wisely, the select committee, having considered the submissions, decided to split the bill into two.

This bill deals with the first intention of the bill, which is the establishment of the Māori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation. I note that the select committee, in its very carefully considered deliberations, decided that the changes to establish the Māori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation were important enough that that split occur and that the bill should actually be passed before the close of the forty-eighth Parliament. So it seems that this bill is yet another example of the bit of a tangle the previous administration got into when it was far more interested in policies that ensured its continued survival on the Treasury benches than on focusing on the issues at hand and the passage of legislation. I am pleased to be part of a Government that is taking appropriate legislation from the obscurity of the Order Paper where it has been languishing, and ensuring its speedy passage through the House and into law.

I think it is appropriate to focus for a moment on the second objective of that initial bill and why this Government and its confidence and supply partners are extremely concerned about ensuring that aspirations for Māori are met, particularly their economic development aspirations, because they are so important to the social and cultural strength of any people—but certainly Māoridom. There were certainly sufficiently challenging elements to that part of the legislation for it to be put to one side, but I look forward to this Government and its confidence and supply partners coming up with much more appropriate policies and legislation that will enable innovation, economic growth, and prosperity for tangata whenua.

The issue of Māori economic development is as important now as it has ever been, as we stare down the barrel of recession—the depth and length of which we cannot really determine yet, and which to a considerable degree is somewhat beyond the control of small economies like ours. We know that the tax-and-spend policies of the previous Labour administration, which it believed somehow contributed to strong economic performance over the past few years but actually acted as a handbrake when better policies would have led to stronger growth and a greater resilience to the downturn, were thankfully ended. They were thankfully ended by not only the general electorate but the Māori electorate who saw through those policies and elected parties to govern so that they could cushion the country through the harshest edges of recession. High tax and public spending will not end this recession. Education, innovation, entrepreneurship, risk taking, and increasing exports are the key to improving our position relative to other OECD countries. Rising unemployment is probably the most tangible and concerning element of recession. Previous recessions have identified that Māori are as vulnerable, or more so, as the rest of the population when considering the average rates of unemployment. Māori economic development initiatives must continue to be encouraged, as evidenced by the Māori development workshops that have already been held earlier this year and mentioned by the Hon Dr Pita Sharples. I look forward to the Government and the Māori Party continuing to explore ways in which this can be achieved.

The Māori Trustee, I understand, is also responsible for the administration of the Sir Apirana Ngata Memorial Scholarship, which was created by the Maori Soldiers Trust Act in 1957. I am advised that the scholarship funding comes from the Hereheretau Station in Wairoa, which is a major asset of the Māori Soldiers Trust, so I certainly commend the work of the trust office and the opportunities given to Māori students through that scholarship.

During the Committee stage my colleague Aaron Gilmore talked about the issue of distributable income and those who are and are not entitled to income. In particular he referred to the unclaimed moneys in some of the families from his area in Te Wai Pounamu who were entitled to, in some cases, considerable amounts of money, as I understand it, thanks to the amendments being made to clauses 11 and 11A. The entitlement to those unclaimed moneys will rise by the fact that all of the income from the investment of money in the common fund will be paid into the common fund and the distributable income will be paid out of the common fund, rather than the interest earned being paid into the general purposes fund. Mr Gilmore was strongly in favour of some of the families he described in respect of that clause. I support that view and look forward to that being the case.

One of the other significant things the bill does is to effectively write off the Māori Trustee’s accumulated debt to the Crown, therefore ruling out the need for section 41 and making the Māori Trust Office effectively Crown funded. That is not to indicate that the autonomy of the Māori Trust Office should be compromised in any way. The whole purpose of this bill is to crystallise the independence of the Māori Trustee, as in fact any trustee would. The basic principles of trust law in this country revolve around that independence. The legislation will more accurately bring the Māori Trustee into line with common principles, as set out by the trustee’s Act and its subsequent amendments.

I am very delighted to have been given the opportunity to take this call and spend a few minutes sharing my learnings of the day. I am proud to support this bill, as my Government will, and I look forward to its passage through the House so that the general level of accountability for the office of the Māori Trustee is approved. The Māori Trustee will be free from political pressure as a stand-alone organisation, and it will add to the communication between the trustee and its beneficiaries. I support this bill. I look forward to its passage through the House. I hope I have not kept Mita awake for too long. I will be very happy to support this bill. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) : As I rise to speak on the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill I would like to recognise and pay tribute to Hekia Parata and her mother, who, very sadly, has passed away. Hekia, of course, is my bench mate in Parliament. I do know that Hekia’s mother was extremely proud of her, and if her mother was anything like Hekia, she would have been a very strong and capable woman. This is a great loss, not only to her family but to all of us.

In rising to speak on this bill I give a word of caution to my very good friend Paul Quinn, who spoke with great eloquence earlier in this debate. I want to caution you about the savaging you keep on giving the previous Minister of Māori Affairs, the Hon Parekura Horomia, on these issues. I think you should leave the previous Minister of Māori Affairs alone.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): Would you please keep the Chair out of the discussion. “You” refers to the Chair.

TODD McCLAY: My apologies, Mr Assistant Speaker. I think when Paul is speaking in this House it would be best for him not to savage the previous Minister of Māori Affairs in such a way. The previous Minister is committed to this bill, and he speaks with great support for the Māori people. It strikes me, when listening to him, that he has an open mind. Perhaps he has an open mind when it comes to issues about Māori people in New Zealand. In fact, his mind is so open on this issue that Paul suggested to me he could feel the draught from here.

I commend the current Minister of Māori Affairs, Pita Sharples, for the fast pace and big progress he has made in delivering this bill before the House. He is a Minister who is all about delivery. I liken him, using a rugby analogy, to a winger who has a bill under his arm and is charging down the sideline, when the members of the previous Government are still hanging around the halfway line, arguing with the referee and complaining amongst themselves as to why someone else has the ball—in this case, the bill—and is running off to score a try.

Tau Henare, another former Minister of Māori Affairs, spoke earlier. Indeed, it is my impression, having observed this bill in other discussions in Parliament over the last 6 months, that the new Minister of Māori Affairs, Pita Sharples, is probably even better as a Minister than Tau Henare was when he was the Minister of Māori Affairs. I know that members opposite will find this hard to believe, but he has been doing a very good job. Tau Henare was an excellent Minister, none the less.

In coming to the bill directly, I say it is very important legislation. I had the opportunity to speak on this bill in the Committee stage. When I went back to my office and was able to look at my speech and read it, I realised that I might have made an error during my discussion in the Committee stage. I referred to the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, and I think I might have questioned whether she was a good person. I have had a chance to reflect on that very clearly, and I know that she supports this bill. I want to say how much I enjoyed the discussions I had with her during the campaign last year in Matamata, and upon reflection I can say she is not only an honourable person but a very good person. I want to set the record straight on that. Of course, at the time it was not clear whether she was supporting the bill, but her smile at me now suggests that she will be doing so, and therefore I set the record straight.

What does this bill do? We have heard other speakers talk about that at great length, but I repeat that it establishes the Māori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation. Finally, after so long, all the fighting, the quibbling, and the discussions that went on under the last Government in relation to the organisation around the Māori Trustee will be set aside. The good news for the Māori Trustee is that not only will it be easier for the Māori Trustee to do his or her work but the Māori Trustee will be able to focus on the very important job of going out there and finding the people for whom he or she is entrusted with funds and with land, and of trying to deliver some of the funds back to those people.

The bill also looks at the Minister’s authority when appointing a trustee, and also—this is important—when the Minister decides to take away the appointment of a trustee. I note—and in the debate others have spoken of this—that the Minister must observe the rules of natural justice. When one considers the rules of natural justice, I suggest one realises that when the previous Government put that provision in place—before it was unable to deliver this bill to Parliament and pass it into law—it did not have the current Minister in mind. He is a man whom I do not think we need to remind about natural justice. But perhaps in the future, one day 15 years from now, this issue will come up. Let us suppose that one of the members opposite becomes the Minister of Māori Affairs again. It might possibly be the Hon Parekura Horomia if he is still here, as the Labour Party rejuvenates itself. Well, on looking at this bill, I see that the reference to the Minister observing the rules of natural justice is important. It suggests that politics will be left out of that; politics will be set aside. That will be a good 15 years from now, and observing the rules of natural justice would be a great thing.

Paul Quinn: He will be Prime Minister.

TODD McCLAY: Does the member think the Hon Parekura Horomia will be Prime Minister? He would be a very good Prime Minister. I think members on the Labour side of the House will have a discussion on that. If they gave Government MPs a vote on which of the members opposite should become a future Prime Minister, I think that Parekura would get a lot of votes from members on this side of the House.

I go on to say that the bill also replaces the term “interest” with that of “distributable income”, which is very important because the issue is not just about interest. Funds come from a number of places, and I have seen a number of very wide descriptions. The sad news, I suppose, is that if we had left the word “interest” in the bill—so that when the bill is adopted it became part of the law—today under the new Government the return from that interest would be about 2.5 percent per year. That would concern a lot of people who have money invested, as opposed to those who are borrowing and who would like that, because under the previous Government the interest rate was probably about 10 percent. The return from interest would have been much greater then, of course, than it is now, and many people for whom interest is paid on the funds held by the trustee are not benefiting from those funds, at all. There is a very long list of people out there who are yet to be found, and who might benefit from the funds held there. There is a structured income from the investment of the money in the common fund, and that forms part of the common fund rather than being transferred to the existing general purpose fund. That is important became it means that the money will be held there in trust, and cannot be diverted and used for other things.

I think I mentioned the word “diversion”, and I have a $35 million question: what did the previous Government want to do with the $35 million that was set up there, under the Māori Trustee, for it to use? As I searched through documents earlier, I came across a number of statements from extremely honourable members of this House—members who are doing a great job not only on behalf of the Māori community but on behalf of all of New Zealand and all New Zealanders—that said a Labour Government proposal to take $35 million from the Māori Trustee to build a Māori economic development agency was just another way for Labour MPs to write cheques to buy back the Māori vote. That was one statement. Who said that? It was a man who has spoken very ably in this House, and who knows a lot about these very important issues: my good friend Tau Henare. Mr Henare went on to say that proposal was a blatant bid by the Labour Party to try to get Māori back on board, and that Labour was stealing Māori money to do it. Mr Henare said that was unfair and desperate. Well, I ask members opposite how unfair and desperate that is.

I have only a few moments left, and as this is an important bill I want to tell members a little about the research we were able to do before coming to the House today. I was able to get a list of people in my area of New Zealand, the Bay of Plenty, and particularly in the Rotorua electorate or Waiariki area. I have the number of people who are on the list of those who are owed money. I call on the new trustee, when this bill becomes law, to redouble his efforts and do everything possible to go out and try to find these people—not just to put out messages in a newspaper or on the Internet site but to actually look for an effective way to find them. There are 28 pages of names of people—1,400 people—in the Waiariki area who are owed money, and very large substantial amounts of money, and at the end of this debate I think it is important that we look at helping the Māori Trustee. I support this bill, and in a moment I will seek leave to table those names, so that the House has the very best opportunity it can have to help the trustee in his work.

The Minister has done a great piece of work; I commend him for it. I am very happy to stand up and to support this bill in its third reading. This will be a celebration. From 2007 to 2008 there was a change of Government and a Minister running down the sidelines with a bill. Today he will score a try, and that will be good for the Māori Trustee and for Māori people in New Zealand. Thank you.

I seek leave to table the document in front of me, which is a list of unclaimed moneys held by the Māori Trustee for the Waiariki area.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): Leave is sought for the tabling of the document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) : Ā, tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker Barker, huri rauna kia ora tātou katoa e te Whare. Hoi anō, tautoko tuatahi au i te kōrero e pā ana ki tō tātou kuia, te whaea o Hēkia. Me kī atu ki a ia, kua ngaro atu ki tēnā tua o te ārai. Me te mea anō, me mihi au ki tētahi o wā tātou whānau e Parekura, mōhio ana koe ki te whānau Kīngi. Kei roto i a mātou i Ngāti Kahu. I te mea kua mate tētahi o wā mātou tamaiti tamariki o Te Wharekura o Rangi Āniwaniwa i nanahi rā. Takoto mai ana ki roto o Pēria. Hoi anō rātou ki a rātou te hunga kua mate, tātou anō ki a tātou e nohonoho nei, hākoa ko tēhea te taha o te Whare, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou katoa.

[And greetings to you, Mr Assistant Speaker Barker, and to us all throughout the House. Firstly, I also endorse the tributes to our kuia, Hekia’s mother, by saying that she is lost from view on that side of the divide. I also acknowledge the loss incurred by one of our families. Parekura, you might recall the Kīngi family, who live with us of Ngāti Kahu. One of our young children of Te Wharekura o Rangi Āniwaniwa passed away yesterday and lies in state at Pēria. Nevertheless, the dead remain there with the dead while we, the living, seated about remain here. Regardless of which side of the House we are located, I acknowledge you and all of us. Greetings.]

This week is a very significant week in the history of Aotearoa, because it is the 5th birthday of the arrival, on the steps of this very Parliament, of te hīkoi takutai moana—the foreshore and seabed march of 2004—when 40,000 Māori gathered in Parliament grounds after marching from Te Rerenga Wairua, crossing tribal boundaries, gathering strength every day, and uniting tribes in a way that had not been seen for decades. It was a week when Māoridom signalled its refusal to be cowed by the threat to steal its foreshore and seabed; when Māoridom finally realised the 70 years of loyalty that it had given blindly and willingly was being thrown back in its face; and when Māori chose to turn their backs on the Labour Party and turn instead to one another for support, and to the newly formed Māori Party for the independence that they had craved for generations. The Māori Party now graces this House as the very first independent Māori political party to be seated in the New Zealand House of Representatives. The Māori Party is proud to stand alongside the Hon Dr Pita Sharples, who is the first Māori member of Parliament in the history of this country to present a bill to the House as Minister of Māori Affairs representing the only independent Māori political force ever to make it into Parliament.

This is a historic occasion. For all of these reasons and more, I am proud to stand here today and to pledge the Māori Party’s support for the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill. To see how far we have come in such a short time, I decided to look through Hansard to see what the Māori Party’s other co-leader, the Hon Tariana Turia, was doing during those traumatic times surrounding the first reading of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. The debate was led by Michael Cullen, Don Brash, and Winston Peters, followed by Parekura Horomia, Jeanette Fitzsimons, Metiria Turei, and Richard Prebble. I see that the Hon Tariana Turia then sought leave to speak, but her request was denied by the ACT Party because she had recently been dumped by Labour for refusing to bow to the dictates of the party hierarchy. The debate continued with Peter Dunne, after which Tariana Turia rose again and was denied leave again. So the debate continued with Nanaia Mahuta, after which John Tamihere sought leave for Tariana Turia to speak—a call denied for a third time, just like in the Bible.

I tender the thanks of the Māori Party to Mita Ririnui for his gracious and unselfish action—he rose to speak and offered to stand aside so that Tariana Turia could be heard. Tariana’s words rang out with a truth that time itself cannot silence. She said: “What has been taken away is not just tupuna rights, which Māori may have been able to establish. What is also under compromise is the right to justice in the hands of the court. We will not sit down and accept a compromise of basic rights, a denial of our tikanga, a belittling of our status as indigenous peoples … We will not be relegated to second-class citizens in our own land. We are tangata whenua, and we are proud of it. It is that pride and determination that will drive us in the next hīkoi to the ballot box. We can determine our own future, and we will.” If I might add—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I hesitate to raise it because clearly this is a well-prepared speech that the member has worked on for some time. The problem I have is that it does not yet appear to address the third reading of this bill. I think we are getting a very interesting treatise on Māori representation in New Zealand—

Hon Steve Chadwick: And rights.

Hon Trevor Mallard: —and rights—and the history of members in this Parliament on other issues and other bills. I think this phase of the bill is meant to bring together the debates on this legislation, but it is meant to focus on the legislation before the House, or at least give fairly regular passing reference to it. We have not had that yet.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): Speaker’s rulings 116/7 and 117/3 advise that members should “confine themselves to the general principles of the bill as it emerged from the committee.”, and I invite the member to address the bill in its general principles. The member may, of course, draw on other elements to expand on the points that he is making.

HONE HARAWIRA: Tēnā koe. Tēnā tātou anō. In reference to the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill, I say that I have gone back over this time to remind us all of the massive changes to this Parliament over those 5 short years, and to remind us that today is indeed a day when Māori can all be proud of the standing of the independent Māori voice in Parliament that is the Māori Party.

The Māori Trustee Amendment Bill affects Māori in many ways. It will have an immediate impact on those who have land administered by the Māori Trustee, it delivers on a positive future for landowners while respecting the legacy of those who have gone before, and it realises a deeply held desire by Māori people generally, and by the Māori Party in particular, to have the Māori Trustee become a stand-alone body. Throughout the debate on this bill many speakers have referred to the influence of paternalistic bureaucracy, a concern raised time and time again by the beneficial owners about the independence of the Māori Trustee from the Crown. We congratulate the Minister on recognising the desire of those beneficial owners of Māori land to be consulted on how the Māori Trustee can best meet their needs, and we recognise in this bill the foundation for ensuring that the Māori Trustee can meet its obligations to those beneficial owners.

This bill will enable the transfer of staff from the existing structure to the new stand-alone entity so that no time is lost in retraining, and it also puts a greater focus on transparency so that beneficial owners of Māori land can have a greater understanding of exactly how the Māori Trustee meets its responsibilities. The bill also puts to rest a rather clumsy and unseemly attempt by the previous Government to try to justify the taking of $35 million, which should rightfully go back to the beneficial owners, and giving it to another organisation whose trustees would have been chosen by the Minister of Māori Affairs himself. This bill provides for the appointment of a deputy Māori Trustee to ensure the new organisation keeps functioning effectively in the absence of the trustee, and it provides sound principles on how the new stand-alone Māori Trustee organisation will be founded and run.

The Māori Party supports the passing of the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill. We have every confidence that the Minister of Māori Affairs will ensure appropriate consultation in the appointment of the Māori Trustee, and we extend our best wishes to the group for a successful future. In closing let me not let this moment pass without offering my congratulations to the Hon Dr Pita Sharples and the Hon Tariana Turia for the leadership they have provided to the Māori Party and, indeed, the Māori people as we again pay tribute to the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill—the very first bill introduced by a Minister of Māori Affairs from a party chosen by, representative of, and accountable to the Māori people themselves. This is a huge moment in our history as a nation. Five years ago this week the Hon Tariana Turia said: “We can determine our own future, and we will.” Today we add the final words to that prophecy: “Indeed, we are.” Kia ora tātou.

• Bill read a third time.

Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister for Regulatory Reform) : I move, That the Regulatory Improvement Bill be now read a first time. It is my intention that the bill be referred to the Commerce Committee.

Today we take an important step towards making it easier to do business in New Zealand by removing red tape and unnecessary bureaucracy. This step illustrates this Government’s commitment to making continual improvements in the quality of New Zealand’s regulation in order to assist the efficiency and the growth of New Zealand businesses. Today I present to the House the Regulatory Improvement Bill. We have reinstated this bill, which was introduced by the previous Government, because we agree that the changes will help business.

Today marks what I intend will become an annual event in this House. The yearly regulatory reform omnibus bill will be a vehicle to improve regulatory frameworks and reduce the compliance burden on businesses in a timely fashion. This Government has a focus on new regulation that would impose compliance costs on businesses, because we recognise the pressures that businesses are currently under because of the global financial crisis. Our aim is to get better policy and better results for New Zealand. When it comes to existing regulations, on which this bill is focused, that means, first, systematically reviewing regulation that has a significant impact on productivity, and, second, identifying and regularly repealing unnecessary or unnecessarily costly regulations. It is crucial that we ensure that the Government’s regulation is necessary, that it is cost-effective and proportionate to risk, that our regulatory frameworks as a whole are of high quality, and that key interested parties are engaged in the process of continual regulatory improvement.

The current bill addresses certain low-hanging fruit reforms that have been identified in the last few years. The provisions in the bill came out of the Quality Regulation Review, which was undertaken by the previous Government in 2006 and 2007, and let me thank the Hon Lianne Dalziel for that work and for working across the House in terms of getting a better outcome. The review identified a number of issues that required amendments to legislation. The changes proposed in this bill cover a diverse range of policy areas and legislation, but they are all aimed at the same objective—namely, improving regulatory frameworks and reducing the compliance burden on business. Those objectives are the unifying theme of the clauses in the Regulatory Improvement Bill, which I am introducing to the House today.

I am advised that the Quality Regulation Review took 15 months to complete and involved a wide range of Government agencies as well as more than 200 businesses. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the businesses and their membership organisations that contributed their time, energy, and ideas to the review, and, again, to thank the previous Minister of Commerce for her work. I am confident that these businesses will enjoy some clear benefits arising from this bill. It goes some way to address the concerns they raised with us. Engagement with business is the only way to understand the real impacts of the decisions we make as parliamentarians, and I intend to continue the momentum begun in the development of this bill.

Overall, these changes address regulatory duplications, gaps, administrative errors, and inconsistencies between different pieces of legislation. Collectively they created unnecessary compliance costs and uncertainty for business. Fixing them is a small step toward seeing a more prosperous and more successful nation driven by the initiative and hard work of individuals. These changes, individually, are small fixes, but for businesses these small changes do count, and this Government is committed to do all that it can to address the barriers, big or small, that hold back New Zealand businesses from reaching their full potential and greatest growth.

Too often, much-needed changes to legislation are not made, because it is difficult for small changes to get space on a busy legislative agenda. This bill represents a first instance of a relatively easy mechanism to fast track such improvements. This bill does exactly that; it provides an efficient and effective legislative vehicle to make the amendments, and it consolidates several small gains into an omnibus bill, which can deliver the accumulated benefits these changes represent. The bill comprises 22 changes to various Acts, and all the changes are designed to make it easier to do business. The changes demonstrate that this Government is a Government of regulatory reform: we see the problems and we want to fix them.

Some of the changes are aimed at speeding up administrative processes. These include the proposed amendments to delegation processes in the quota management system and aspects of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, amendments to some public notification procedures under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, and improvements to access to information for emergency services. Other clauses aim to provide certainty around existing provisions. Those include the removal of duplicate penalties regimes for commercial fishers, greater certainty around the process for tendering for concessions on conservation land, clarity around governance arrangements in the gas industry, and allowing for provisional test certificates under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act.

Several clauses have the effect of reducing current administrative and reporting requirements. Included in these provisions is an amendment that allows business concessions on conservation land to be granted without public notice for 10 years at a time, instead of just 5 years. That will save approximately $1,000 for the application. The Minister will still notify concessions that will have significant effects. Similarly, changes to the Companies Act will mean that some private firms will no longer have to appoint auditors, and thus that Act will be brought in line with the provisions of the Financial Reporting Act.

The other, largest group of changes in this bill will reduce the number of inspections to which firms are subject, by enabling inspectors authorised under one Act, such as the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, to undertake inspections related to other Acts, such as the Health and Safety in Employment Act and the Biosecurity Act, during one visit to the firm, instead of separate visits—often actually now done by the same inspector—for each Act.

The Regulatory Improvement Bill is just one of the essential measures needed to implement improvements to regulation in New Zealand. Many more measures will be needed and are on the way. In recent years there has been an avalanche of new rules and regulations. New Zealand is over-regulated: red tape is tying up businesses in knots—in particular, those involved in building, construction, and property. This omnibus bill represents a fresh approach, which ensures that New Zealand’s regulatory environment will continually evolve to meet the needs of a dynamic economy trying to grow its way out of a recession. In introducing this bill, I recognise that the legislative changes proposed are limited and will not provide an immediate silver bullet to improve overall business investment or productivity. I believe, though, that we can do even better to reduce the red tape and regulatory interventions that are hindering businesses. That is the reason I intend that a regulatory reform omnibus bill will become a feature of New Zealand’s legislative programme each year. Thank you.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) : I am very pleased to be speaking on the first reading of the Regulatory Improvement Bill. Obviously, given that it was a bill generated under a Labour-led Government, I am very pleased to finally see it dealt with in the House. I thank the Minister for his very kind words, and I do appreciate them. I felt that when I was Minister I was able to work with him in his capacity as an Opposition member of Parliament but as one who had introduced a member’s bill—that was his passion—the Regulatory Responsibility Bill. Even though we did not necessarily think that that was the right approach in that bill, we were working with him to try to gain the results that we were both trying to achieve. I think we are on a similar track, and I acknowledge his role here in this Parliament as the first Minister for Regulatory Reform. I think that is certainly a great acknowledgment of his commitment in this area.

The Regulatory Improvement Bill itself is a demonstration of the Labour-led Government’s commitment to making continuous improvement in the quality of New Zealand’s regulatory frameworks in order to assist the efficiency and growth of New Zealand businesses. This was a really important process for us. I am really pleased the Minister has said that such a bill will become part of the normal proceedings of Parliament, and I will talk about that in a minute, too. It is really important that we have a regular opportunity, as a Parliament, to tidy up those issues that are not perhaps insignificant enough to make it into a Statutes Amendment Bill, but not significant enough to warrant a bill in their own right. Although it is fair to say that the amendments contained in the Regulatory Improvement Bill are not particularly dramatic, the bill itself is another deliverable of the Quality Regulation Review.

I want to backtrack a minute to February 2006 when the then Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Helen Clark, said: “We will also be taking a fresh look at regulatory frameworks. Feedback from business suggests that higher quality regulation would lead to more growth and investment—and we want to engage with business on how to achieve that.” This is precisely what the Quality Regulation Review was all about. So the previous Government started from scratch and, essentially, we built a process that enabled us to engage directly with business, because we felt that it was business that could give us the best quality information—

Nathan Guy: Didn’t you sack the board?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: —about what it was that was standing in the way of business growth, rather than coming up with a particular proposal—

Nathan Guy: Didn’t you sack all the board when that came out of the recommendations?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I know that the member wants to make this point. Perhaps I need to respond to the interjection. The previous Labour Government established the position of Minister for Small Business. The former National Government did not have one. The Labour-led Government established a Small Business Advisory Group, which did not exist under the former National Government.

Nathan Guy: You sacked them all.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: We did not sack them all; we replaced every single member of it, after one group had been operating for 3 years. They had been in for 3 years.

Nathan Guy: So you sacked them?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I did not. I do not know why that member keeps saying that. Does the member object to the second Small Business Advisory Group—the people who replaced the first group? I think there is one member from his patch on the group now, so perhaps the member might like to have a rethink. As I understand it, the Small Business Advisory Group has had its number of meetings cut under this new National Government. So it is very interesting, indeed, that the member wants to interject in that regard.

I released the final report on the review in September 2007, after over a year of engagement with business. The report identified a number of areas that required amendments to legislation, and the changes covered a diverse range of policy areas and legislation. But they all essentially had the same objective, which was to improve regulatory frameworks and reduce compliance costs for business. Those objectives are the unifying theme of the clauses in the Regulatory Improvement Bill. Overall, these changes address regulatory duplications, gaps, administrative errors, inconsistencies, etc. Individually, as the Minister has said, these changes are small fixes, but for business these small things matter most of all. It is not just one thing that annoys small business; it is the accumulation of a lot of things that upsets small business. That is a lesson I learnt by going out and talking directly to small businesses and working through these issues with them.

When Labour was in Government it was committed to doing all it could to address the barriers, big or small, that hold back New Zealand businesses from reaching their fullest potential and their greatest growth. That is why, for example, Labour brought in the research and development tax credit—something that this Government has irresponsibly scrapped, in my view. Too often much-needed changes to legislation are not made, because it is difficult for small changes to get space on a business legislative agenda. In my former roles as the Minister of Commerce and the Minister for Small Business, I combined those roles to champion the idea of a relatively easy mechanism to fast track these improvements, even to the extent that I made a personal submission as a member of this Parliament to the Standing Orders Committee to get the Standing Orders changed so that we would be able to have this bill as an omnibus bill.

Members will be very familiar with the Standing Orders, as has been obvious since Gerry Brownlee took over as Leader of the House. There is a section that deals with the prohibitions on omnibus bills. Standing Order 258 limits the types of omnibus bills. Law reform or other omnibus bills have to go through the Business Committee. The Business Committee has already signed off, as a matter of practice, on a Business Law Reform Bill every year, but, unfortunately again, the types of changes that are made in Government department areas do not obviously fall within the criteria required for a Business Law Reform bill. So the idea of having a Regulatory Improvement Bill every year in the Standing Orders seems to me to be the best way to get around that.

In the meantime I was successful in gaining a ruling from the Clerk’s Office that improving regulatory frameworks and reducing compliance costs for business were sufficient unifying criteria, as I mentioned before. So in order to have this bill introduced, an amendment to the Standing Orders was not required, but I still think it would be worthwhile for the House to think about whether we should formalise a Business Law Reform Bill and a Regulatory Improvement Bill in the Standing Orders. Then there would be no debate about whether we have this approach to dealing with these issues in the future.

The Minister went through a range of different Acts that are being amended by this bill. But I want to make this point, and it was a lesson I learnt very quickly when I travelled from one end of the country to the other, talking to small business. My point is that Government Ministers tend to see individual departments. They see, for example, the Department of Labour, the Ministry of Economic Development, the Inland Revenue Department, and the Ministry for the Environment. Businesses do not see individual departments. They see the Government, and they are asking why the Government is asking them for the same information they gave it yesterday. They do not understand why the Government structures itself in such an inefficient way in terms of responding to the needs of business. I coined a phrase that became my personal driver for the Quality Regulation Review.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: It’s all about you.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Well, thank you for that. That is lovely. I came up with a phrase that was trying to articulate what we were trying to achieve, and that was: “Why cannot the many arms of Government extend a single hand to business?”. That became my driver. One of the amendments in the bill specifically responds to that call. Why cannot the many arms of Government extend a single hand to business? That is what we ought to be doing.

The Regulatory Improvement Bill is an important measure in its own right, regardless of its content, and I believe we should acknowledge the hundreds of submissions from businesses, large and small, as well as from all of those really busy men and women out there in business who participated in all of the meetings with myself and with my officials at the time. I commend to the House an omnibus bill of this nature becoming a feature of New Zealand’s legislative programme and part of the Standing Orders of this House.

JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) : It gives me pleasure to rise today to speak in the first reading of the Regulatory Improvement Bill. It is a bill I enthusiastically support as I stand on behalf of the National members of Parliament. I thank the Hon Rodney Hide, the first Minister for Regulatory Reform, for introducing the bill. I also acknowledge the work that was undertaken prior to the formation of this Government to get some of the groundwork done on working out what was needed in order to bring this bill to fruition.

This bill is all about cutting red tape. One of the major gripes I heard during the election campaign was about the excessive red tape that people in businesses have to negotiate. This bill contains 22 amendments to legislation, and the broad objectives are “improving the regulatory framework and reducing the compliance burden on business.” Although I acknowledge the work undertaken by the previous Government, I have to say that after 9 long years the voters were not prepared to let it finish the job. That is because they did not trust the previous Government to finish the job.

I want to make some comments in relation to the comments made by the Hon Rodney Hide today. As he has already said, this bill is about “systematically reviewing regulation”. It is about responding to the message that businesses have been giving us systematically—over many, many years—about regulations that are unnecessarily bureaucratic and costly. The Hon Rodney Hide described the reforms as low-hanging fruit. Nevertheless it is a good start, and it shows the resolve of this Government and its partners to reduce the compliance burden on business. At this time of economic uncertainty, this has never been more important. It has never been more important to send a clear message to businesses that we are on their side, we know how important they are to New Zealand, and we are prepared to do the hard work to find ways of assisting them in their business lives.

The mandate was delivered to the National Party and to its partners in this new Government on 8 November 2008. That mandate is now being seen in the lead that the Hon Rodney Hide has taken as the Minister for Regulatory Reform in bringing this bill to the House. I am also heartened to hear the Minister’s comments that regulatory reform in an omnibus type bill such as this will be a feature of this Government. On 4 February 2009 there was another statement from the Prime Minister. It was not the Rt Hon Helen Clark’s statement back in 2006, but another statement on 4 February given by the Prime Minister, the Hon John Key, entitled “Jobs and Growth”. He outlined in that speech a very important part of the jobs and growth package and the important reform that is necessary. I quote: “In particular I have given Rodney Hide, as the Minister for Regulatory Reform, the mission of finding and cutting additional red tape that is holding back business development, reducing investment and depriving New Zealanders of jobs.” In saying that, the Prime Minister has certainly made it clear that this bill is a very important part of our jobs and growth package.

I acknowledge some points made by the Hon Lianne Dalziel, who raised the fact that this legislation has been the result of 2 years of work. But I remind members opposite that they were in Government for 9 long years. She made some comments about the Small Business Advisory Group holding fewer meetings. I am sure that even though there may be fewer meetings there will be less need for talk under this Government, because it will be observing and participating, and there will be much more action. This National Government is a Government of action, not inaction. This Government is well supported in its partnerships, and this Government will see that things get done to make the environment much better for businesses.

The amendments within the bill address regulatory duplication, gaps, administrative errors, and inconsistencies between different pieces of legislation that collectively create unnecessary compliance costs and uncertainties for business. I can just imagine that businesses around New Zealand, on hearing that this bill has been introduced to Parliament, have been saying that at last they see evidence that they have been listened to. The amendments also target poor implementation and administration of various regulatory frameworks. Cutting undue regulation will help remove barriers to economic growth, and will help business to do business. This Government is committed to removing barriers; this is an important step to make it easier for businesses to do their job.

I will briefly run through the Acts that are to be amended. It is quite a varied list: the Companies Act 1993, the Conservation Act 1987, the Designs Act 1953, the Fisheries Act 1996, the Gas Act 1992, the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996, and the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Restructuring) Act 1995. The Reserves Act 1977, and the Weights and Measures Act 1987 complete the list of Acts that will be amended under this bill.

I will spend a little time on the regulatory improvement aspects as covered in the explanatory note of the bill, because by concentrating on just a couple of the Acts we can see some very good examples of how businesses in New Zealand will be better off. The first one I will concentrate on is the Fisheries Act 1996. Currently, commercial fishers are required to balance their catch with an annual catch entitlement, which is part of the quota management system. If at the end of the fishing year they have not acquired enough annual catch entitlement to balance against their catch, they incur a debt in the form of an invoice for annual deemed values. The majority of fishers manage to balance their catch within the required time frames, but some do not. For various administrative reasons, which are deemed to be of a minor nature, those annual catch entitlement transfers fail to take place. Such failures only surface after the annual catch entitlement register is closed, and the fishers are therefore precluded from making additional annual catch entitlement transfers to rectify the errors. The fishers then incur an annual deemed value debt, even though they intended to comply—that is the very important point in this case. In this situation most fishers have to pay the debt to prevent their commercial fishing permit from being suspended.

There are currently no provisions within the Fisheries Act to allow that situation to be rectified. This bill will rectify that problem. An objective of the bill is “To ensure that the catch balancing regime is fair, efficient, and effective.” The changes proposed would remove the perception that the Government is revenue-gathering by taking advantage of those minor administrative errors, and would introduce an element of fairness to situations where invoices for debts have been issued although the sustainability of a stock has not been threatened. It would also mitigate the burdens of firms that arise out of legislation. The New Zealand Seafood Industry Council and Commercial Fisheries Services Ltd have both indicated their support for this proposal. As members can see, this is a very good example of how something relatively minor can be fixed within a bill such as this.

There are other very good examples. In fact, the Companies Act 1993 is an example where requiring companies to have their financial statements audited would impose an unnecessary cost, as there is no rationale to have entities’ filing and auditing requirements out of alignment. This issue will be addressed in this bill.

The consultation required for the bill to continue has been undertaken. I am sure that when this bill reaches the select committee we will hear further support and encouragement, and also, perhaps, suggestions as to improvements in the ways the amended bills can assist business. I conclude my contribution to this debate by saying that this bill is all about helping business to do business, and I wholeheartedly support that.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) : I rise to support the Regulatory Improvement Bill, and I endorse some of the comments made by earlier speakers. There is always a need for housekeeping in Government. As life becomes increasingly sophisticated, there is increasing sophistication in regulation in order to regulate the increasingly sophisticated ways in which we go about the business of our lives and commerce. That sophistication and complexity means that on occasions we have regulations that are inconsistent with each other. In a perfect world, of course, those inconsistencies would never arise, but they do in the real world.

Simon Bridges: What about just legislative laziness?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, I will come to that. That interjection was from Simon Bridges from the National Party, and I will divert to that issue since he has raised it.

Yes, we do see some legislative laziness already from the National-led Government. National should probably put most of the blame for that on its coalition partner Mr Rodney Hide, who is responsible for this very bill. It seems somewhat ironic that year after year we have been lectured by Rodney Hide on the need to know the true cost of regulatory change before imposing it, when on the issue of the biggest regulatory change that this country is going through at the moment—that is, regulatory changes to the system of governance in Auckland—that most basic rubric of his most closely held principles is being ignored. I know some of us doubt the number of principles that really are held by Mr Hide, but I thought that if one principle was close to his heart, it was the need to properly cost regulatory change. Yet in this House this week, we had a question asked yesterday of Mr Hide about whether there had been any costing of the changes that have been rushed through by the National - ACT - Māori Party Government to the system of governance that was recommended by the royal commission. The royal commission, as part of its very lengthy and thorough process, properly costed the consequences of the changes that it proposed. The National Government very quickly came up with some proposed changes to those, but it has not costed them.

Notwithstanding the fact that National has not costed those changes, it will rush them through under urgency next week. So we have changes with billion-dollar consequences over time to Auckland, and National has not costed them. The culprit has left the Chamber. People used to say “The President has left the White House.” Well, the culprit has left the Chamber. He knows that that is true. He was called into order by the Speaker today, because he tried to hide from the House the reality that was eventually proven under the questioning of Phil Twyford, although yesterday Mr Hide had twisted the meaning of a question as if it was about the process costs of the reforms rather than the actual cost of the reforms.

Grant Robertson: Dancing on the head of a pin.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, that pin became very uncomfortable for him today.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Something was pricked.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes, that is right. A bit of hot air was expelled after that particular attempt to hide the truth from the public. The truth was exposed for what it is.

It is somewhat ironic that the perk-buster, the person who stood for regulatory rigour, is this same day bringing forward a bill that represents improvements to regulatory form, but, of course, this bill is not Rodney Hide’s bill. It was prepared by the previous Labour-led Government, under the ministerial guidance of Lianne Dalziel. The current Minister’s only contribution to regulatory reform is to make matters worse by proceeding with changes to Auckland governance that, even now, have not been costed. You know, we have the legislation on that coming forward next week under urgency. When the Government sits under urgency, it does not have to give advance notice or copies of legislation to the Opposition or the media. The normal checks and balances that we have when we are considering legislation are absent when we sit under urgency.

Against that background, one would think that the regulatory reform man, the man whose rubric of his stance on things is to properly cost them, would, in that situation, go even further towards having decent information for the public and for this Parliament on the economic consequences of the changes to the regulatory structure and local governance structure in Auckland as a consequence of the Government’s rushed changes to those proposed by the royal commission. Let us not forget the royal commission had the involvement of a judge and other very experienced panel members who brought to bear their expertise, and they had the assistance of the relevant Government departments to properly cost those things. That has all been thrown out by the National Government. It has come up with alternatives to the commission’s proposals that are not only less democratic but also probably cost more. We do not know that; we do not know how much extra they will cost. We know that many millions of dollars of costs will be borne by Aucklanders, but we still have not seen the figures.

I turn to some of the improvements that are made by this bill. Omnibus bills are restricted in this House because there is a constitutional risk that we can put into an omnibus bill things that fundamentally change lots of different areas of legislation, and they do not get the proper scrutiny that they need if they are all hidden in one omnibus bill. That is why we are pretty restrictive of the circumstances in which we allow omnibus bills to come forward here. The common theme here is that the changes do not deal with significant issues of legislative principle; they deal with regulatory compliance costs. Each of the changes made under this bill improves regulatory processes, and therefore reduces compliance costs, without making changes to the fundamental underlying principles of the relevant Acts.

One of the changes is to the rules relating to overseas companies. Some years ago the rules were changed, and there was a new rule that said that companies with overseas ownership were no longer required to file audited financial statements to the Registrar of Companies. Previously they did have to file those statements, and the change was made to say they did not have to do so, yet at the moment we have the nonsense that the very same companies that do not have to file audited statements have to appoint an auditor. That is obviously inconsistent. If a company does not have to file audited financial statements, then why should it have to appoint an auditor? This legislation fixes that up by making it possible for an overseas company to pass a resolution that it does not appoint an auditor. The same situation applies to New Zealand companies. There is not a special rule for overseas companies; it is the same rule for New Zealand companies and overseas companies. Accordingly, that rule is being changed.

Some other changes are being made to the Designs Act. At the moment, one can have a registered design. The Designs Act gives people some form of right to protect their design. If people have a novel design and they register it under that Act, no one can come along and, as of right, copy that design and then flog it off to somebody else. It is the output of the designer, and for a limited period of years there is protection for the designer under that Act. At the moment, the designer, or the holder of those rights under the Act, can lose those rights if they lapse because the designer did not pay a renewal fee. That seems to be a pretty harsh penalty. If designers forget to pay a $100 fee, they lose the rights to their design for ever. That is too tough, and it needs to be fixed. The relevant authorities need to be given discretion to reinstate those design rights upon payment of the fees—with penalties, probably, for late payment. But upon payment of those fees and penalties, the rights of the designer ought to be reinstated. That is another thing that this bill does.

There are various changes to the Fisheries Act and to the Gas Act. There are overlapping ways in which the sellers of gas have to report liquefied natural gas under the Gas Act and another Act. That inconsistency is being resolved. Improvements are being made to processes under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996. There are some pretty arcane procedures there that should be applied to things that are high-risk but ought to not be applied to things that are low-risk. This legislation attempts to make some changes in order to make that legislation more practical.

That is why the Labour Party will be supporting this legislation. Thank you.

KEVIN HAGUE (Green) : I shall say, for the benefit of the Hansard record, that I have just given the sign for “kia ora”, which I learnt from the New Zealand Sign Language website this afternoon.

I begin my expressing the sympathy of the Green Party to Hekia Parata and her whānau.

So far, my speeches in this House have often focused on the need for a Green New Deal; for a range of actions by the Government to help people cope with the effects of recession but also to address the urgent challenges of climate change and other environmental problems that cannot wait. If it is possible to do both simultaneously, then why on earth would we not? But the Green Party has some other priority areas for action. Today, in relation to this bill, I will touch on a couple of these matters. I speak on behalf of my colleague Metiria Turei, who cannot be in the House today. The need to protect our natural environment in the interests of our kids, and the need for healthy politics, including the Green Party’s charter principle of appropriate decision-making, are also foremost in our minds.

The Regulatory Improvement Bill is designed to improve regulations and the compliance burden on businesses in a range of areas. That is a process we heartily endorse, and I should say for the record that the Green Party will also support the omnibus bill process. However, despite the claims made by the Government that this bill contains only minor and uncontroversial changes, we disagree. In particular, we are opposed to the changes to the Conservation Act, the Reserves Act, and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. Therefore, with regret, we will be opposing the bill.

The Government says that the measures contained in the bill—and Jo Goodhew has already mentioned some of these—address regulatory duplication, gaps, administrative errors, and inconsistencies between different pieces of legislation. That is, clearly, a laudable aim. But, unfortunately, although many of the measures contained in the bill—indeed, most—meet this prescription, others do not, and they would have been much more appropriately dealt with in separate legislation. Even though there is an intent to break the bill into separate pieces at a later stage of its process, that is not an appropriate way of managing the substantive change proposed.

Firstly, we have concerns about the implications of some of the proposed changes to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. Some of these changes do meet the criteria the Government has set out, while others do not. For example, the proposed changes to delegations do not meet those criteria. Our co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons has been closely involved in this area of law, and we will be considering the submissions made on this aspect of the bill with keen interest, should it proceed.

This speech, however, focuses on our concerns about the proposed changes to the Conservation Act and parallel measures proposed for the Reserves Act. Conservation law is an area where conservative—with a small “c”—approaches to change are most needed, yet the changes proposed in this bill do not fit the “technical and uncontroversial” test, at all, but, rather, have been incorporated into this bill for entirely opportunistic reasons. The amendments to the Conservation Act are designed to reduce the costs and administrative burdens of the concession provisions by amending the current provisions to allow concessions to be granted for a term of up to 10 years instead of for the current limit of 5 years, and by introducing a discretion not to publicly notify the intent to issue such concessions. We are opposed to these proposed changes. Conservation land is extremely important to our tourism industry and will become increasingly so. It is also very fragile land, and many areas have very important values. Although the recreational and tourism use of conservation land is an important purpose in the Act and in New Zealand culture, the protection of that land and its fundamental, intrinsic conservation values is the highest priority.

Extending the maximum period of a concession reduces the ability of the Department of Conservation to oversee, review, and manage any detrimental impacts of the concession. We note that the Minister will have the ability to seek a mid-term review of a concession. However, that will most likely require some external organisation making complaints, and following up a long and bureaucratic process to seek the Minister’s agreement to require such a review. Retaining the 5-year maximum term ensures that every concession is reviewed within a realistic time frame, allowing for better-quality assessment of the impacts of the operation on the habitat without ministerial intervention. The reality is that if a concession application is for a 10-year duration, it will be very difficult for the department and for conservation boards—and I should inform the House that I have previously served on the West Coast - Tai Poutini Conservation Board—to make decisions about conditions with any degree of certainty as to likely impacts. The consequence will inevitably be heightened risk to conservation and recreation values.

Some increased pressure, effectively, will also come on to conservators and boards to consider further applications, or to vary conservation management strategies or national park management plans, as potential competitors are excluded by longer-term, monopolistic licences. If an operator cannot undertake the activity for 10 years, pressure will be put on to create a new opportunity. As public conservation land and amenities face increasing pressure from concession activities, the inevitable consequence is loss of wildness, and erosion of the important values and features that led to this land’s inclusion in the conservation estate in the first place. The current 5-year maximum term provides greater protection of the conservation estate and the public interest in it.

In addition, there is a high level of discretion as to whether a concession application is publicly notified. The risk of the public being shut out of the decision-making process is heightened, as the bill’s provisions make the public’s involvement in decision making more contingent, and would reduce the frequency with which the public may have the opportunity to express a view. This is an inappropriate decision-making process. As the land in question is public land, the public interest should have a greater level of protection. The precautionary principle should be applied in the case of granting concessions. By extending the time frame and increasing the discretion around public notification, it will be more and more difficult to identify and remedy the impacts of concessions.

I note that the longer maximum durations for concessions proposed by the bill set out to reduce the administrative costs faced by concession applicants and holders. Members need to note that the department’s cost is in no way reduced, as all costs are recovered from applicants. So the benefits are all accrued by concessionaires, with less cost and exclusion of competition, while the costs for the New Zealanders who own this conservation land are increased risk to conservation and recreation values, less public involvement in decision making, and potentially the loss of better ideas—those potential concessions that are locked out of the concessions process by the longer-term licences.

We note that these proposals arise out of the 2004 concession review project, and that a number of environmental non-governmental organisations were consulted. Of course, that does not mean they supported the outcomes, and should this bill advance, the Green Party will be paying close attention to the views that non-governmental organisations wish to express.

These provisions in relation to the Conservation Act represent just a fraction of the recommendations of that review, and they have been advanced at this time for opportunistic reasons. We are concerned that changes to the concession process are being made in a piecemeal fashion. The conservation estate is too important for this kind of law-making process. Parliament should instead be seeing all of the proposed changes together, and making decisions on the integrated package. These provisions have been inappropriate inclusions within this bill, and carry substantial risks that they have not been appropriately canvassed—and they will not be appropriately canvassed by the process proposed for this bill. For these reasons, the Green Party will oppose the bill, but offers to work with the Government and other parties to find a formulation for the bill that would really be uncontroversial and attract the support of all members of this House. Thank you.

KATRINA SHANKS (National) : It is my pleasure to stand today to support the first reading of the Regulatory Improvement Bill. First of all, I would like to acknowledge Lianne Dalziel, who started work on this bill a couple of years ago. It is unfortunate that she got the wheels spinning but could not get the rubber to hit the road. That is what this John Key - led Government is about—the rubber hitting the road. It is about actually getting things done, actually delivering what he believes we should deliver. We can say as much as we like about putting processes in place, but unless we actually manage to deliver legislation, it does not mean a lot. I am pleased to stand here and support this bill.

I am also pleased to acknowledge and support Rodney Hide, the first Minister in this Parliament to be a Minister for Regulatory Reform. I think that says a lot about the commitment we have to reducing regulation in New Zealand. In fact, there is a global trend at the moment to try to reduce regulation. I remember standing about a year ago to talk about regulations, and particularly regulations for businesses. I remember quoting something along the lines that since 1999 more than 500 new regulations had been put in place, but I am sure it is more than that. I think I am being conservative. I am sure the number is more than 500. That is a lot of new regulations being put in place.

Regulations are constraints, and regulations are costly to small business. Trevor Mallard may yawn, but many businesses in his area of the Hutt are affected by regulations. He himself has been to see them, and he knows how tied up they are by regulations, by the reporting required by them, and he knows the costs that those businesses incur as a result. Especially in our present economic environment, businesses need to focus on their businesses, not to spend time on form-filling, and especially not duplicate form-filling, which is what they are doing now.

That is why this bill is very good. It is an omnibus bill that changes many different types of regulations.

Simon Bridges: A quiet achiever.

KATRINA SHANKS: A quiet achiever it is. Overall, these initiatives address regulatory duplication, gaps, administrative errors, and inconsistencies between different pieces of legislation that collectively create unnecessary compliance costs and uncertainty for businesses. This is what this legislation is about. It will help businesses in New Zealand to keep focused on what they need to be doing, and that is to be focused on their businesses.

There is one provision in particular that I would like to talk to, and it relates to the Companies Act of 1993. I want to tell members why this provision helps the position, and what we have done to get to this stage—to identify the problem and to know we have got it right. In 2006 the requirement for two classes of companies to file audited financial statements with the Registrar of Companies was removed from the Financial Reporting Act 1993. The two classes of companies are, first, companies 25 percent or more of which is overseas-owned, provided that they do not exceed at least two of the following three criteria: annual revenue of $20 million, total assets of $10 million, and 50 full-time equivalent employees; and, second, New Zealand - incorporated companies that are subsidiaries of a New Zealand - incorporated company that is an immediate subsidiary of an overseas-incorporated company. Those are the types of companies that this provision addresses.

The intention was to remove the requirement for those companies to have their financial statements audited. It is not clear whether that has been achieved, as the Companies Act 1993 requires such companies to appoint an auditor. Requiring those companies to have their financial statements audited would impose an unnecessary cost, as there is no rationale to have entities’ filing and auditing requirements out of alignment. To ensure that the policy intent of the audit and filing requirements in the Financial Reporting Act 1993 and the Companies Act 1993 can be implemented in a manner that eliminates unnecessary compliance costs, the preferred option is to amend the Companies Act 1993 to make it clear that the two classes of company are not required to appoint an auditor or to have their financial statements audited. The two classes of companies will benefit from no longer being required to incur the cost of having their financial statements audited, and that makes total sense when we align the two pieces of legislation.

We consulted a number of lawyers and accountants who had requested that this amendment be made; they were consulted on it. So we have identified the problem, and we have found a solution. There is duplication. There is no need for that duplication. If companies do not need to have audited accounts, they certainly do not need to appoint an auditor. So the problem has been addressed. The sector was consulted; it came back and said it agreed with the provision, and that is why we know we have this little provision absolutely right. That is the process we went through with all the other provisions in this bill, to ensure that they were relevant to what each sector needs, and relevant to the environment that companies are actually in.

Many companies fall under this provision. I have not consulted them or asked them, but I would imagine that a company like Rio Tinto Alcan would fall under it. It trades in US dollars, it has contracts in the US, and it is overseas-owned. Therefore it would fall under this provision, which will save it money, save it time, and save it from having to jump over some hurdles that it does not have to jump over in order to do business in New Zealand. So that provision is one provision that is very good.

Another relates to the Conservation Act 1987. Changes to the concessions provisions of that Act will reduce cost and the administrative burden, at a saving of about $1,000 per application. That might not seem much to many people, but it is actually a lot of money when it is accumulated. The provision will allow permits to be granted for a term not exceeding 10 years instead of the current limit of 5 years. It will introduce discretion to not publicly notify the intent to issue licences up to a maximum of 10 years.

Those changes are in the area of conservation. As members can see, the areas are very varied. Next I could talk about changes to the Reserves Act 1977, the Designs Act 1953, or the Fisheries Act 1996. This is a very diverse bill.

The provisions relating to the Designs Act allow for the restoration of lapsed copyright in a registered design where the lapse was because of an unintended failure to pay the renewal fee or to make the necessary application. In relation to the Fisheries Act 1996, we are removing penalty regimes applicable under the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Restructuring) Act 1995 for non-payment of cost recovery levies, as the Fisheries Act 1996 already contains an adequate penalty regime. Once again, that is ironing out duplication of regulations that is not needed—going out and consulting the sector, and actually doing something about the problem. The Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 is in the bill, as well. The aim of the changes to that Act is to ensure that its policy intent can be more efficiently and effectively achieved, with minimum compliance costs.

As members can see, the theme is exactly what it should be: to address regulatory duplication, gaps, administrative errors, and inconsistencies between different pieces of legislation that collectively create unnecessary compliance costs and uncertainty for business. The bill keeps within the scope of the Quality Regulation Review. Its provisions target poor implementation and administration of various regulatory frameworks. The great thing about the intent of the bill is that this process will happen every year now. We will go through regulations and pick out parts that are duplicated; we will identify them, put together an omnibus bill, and move forward with it, and in that way we will ensure that, slowly and over time, we take out the inconsistencies. We are focused on doing that for the businesses of New Zealand. Thank you.

SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) : It is good to be speaking on the Regulatory Improvement Bill. I am very excited about it, in fact. We have had some valuable contributions today from a number of speakers. I pay tribute, firstly, to the Hon Rodney Hide. I agree with the Hon Lianne Dalziel: let us do something that we do not do enough—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): I am sorry to interrupt the member but the debate is interrupted.

• Debate interrupted.