Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs) : I move, That the Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill be now read a second time. This bill is a special one. It recognises the enormous significance of Mauao, Mount Maunganui, to the iwi of Ngāi Te Rangi, Ngāti Ranginui, Ngāti Pūkenga, and also to Waitaha. The bill represents the successful culmination of many years of patient dedication by the kaumātua, Te Rūnanganui o Tauranga Moana, and the iwi themselves. The bill will implement the negotiated agreement between the Crown, Ngāi Te Rangi, Ngāti Ranginui, Ngāti Pūkenga, the trustees of the Mauao Trust and Waitaha. It recognises the mana of Mauao and provides for the transfer of the fee simple estate of the Mauao historic reserve to Tauranga Moana iwi.

The bill represents what I consider to be a constructive and forward-looking outcome for Tauranga Moana Māori and for the wider community. Under the bill iwi will become the holders of the fee simple estate in Mauao. The Tauranga City Council will continue to be the management body, and the Crown will continue to discharge a set of duties and obligations relating to Mauao as if it is still the titleholder. Tauranga Moana iwi will advise on the day-to-day management of the Mauao historic reserve as representatives of the Tauranga City Council’s Mauao steering group. This combination of iwi ownership and joint management will ensure that management practices are both culturally and environmentally appropriate and maintain public safety and access. The bill also sets the platform for a longer-term benefit for the wider community, as all New Zealanders will stand to gain an enhanced appreciation of what Mauao means to the tangata whenua.

I take this opportunity to thank members of the Māori Affairs Committee for their careful consideration of the bill. I would also like to thank those who submitted on the bill for their contribution to this important process. The Māori Affairs Committee heard from a range of submitters and worked through the issues that those submitters raised. The key changes recommended by the committee addressed issues raised by submitters relating to clauses 7 and 8 of the bill. Submitters were concerned about the way in which the legal rights and obligations in relation to the Mauao historic reserve were reflected in these clauses. In particular, the bill as introduced noted that Mauao would be treated as if its fee simple estate were still vested in the Crown.

The question was then raised as to who is the real owner of Mauao under the bill and whether iwi were actually receiving the title to Mauao. To be clear, Tauranga Moana iwi will become the legal owner of Mauao. It will receive the fee simple estate in Mauao and be recognised as its registered proprietors. What will not transfer is the burden of responsibility, both financial and statutory, that comes with the management of a historic reserve. That responsibility will continue to be borne by the Crown. This was the intention behind clauses 7 and 8, and it was central to the negotiated agreement. The committee reworked these clauses after hearing from submitters, to make the distinction clearer and to emphasise that it is the iwi that will own the fee simple estate in Mauao.

I understand that Tauranga Moana iwi have recently reached a memorandum of understanding with the council that reflects the aspirations that iwi have to be more involved in the management of Mauao as a historic reserve in the future. I congratulate iwi and the council on taking this initiative in further strengthening their relationship. Under the bill the existing management arrangements currently provided by the Tauranga City Council will continue for the foreseeable future. I also want to assure the House that the existing management arrangements will continue for the benefit of tangata whenua and the wider community, which will continue to enjoy the maunga tūpuna of Tauranga Moana iwi.

The bill raises the profile of Tauranga Moana Māori, and in achieving that I salute the kuia and koro, and all the whānau for that matter, who have supported the progress of the bill. I also congratulate the Mayor of Tauranga and the Tauranga City Council on their foresight in enhancing iwi input into the management of Mauao by raising the status of its Mauao advisory committee to a steering group over the course of negotiations. The council has now signed a memorandum of understanding with the iwi rūnunga. It is a credit to both parties that they are working together in this way.

This bill will give greater recognition to the iwi—something long overdue—it will grow the community’s appreciation of the ongoing significance of Mauao to Tauranga Moana, and it will further strengthen the ties between our communities under the Treaty. I therefore endorse the recommendations of the Māori Affairs Committee. I wholeheartedly support the second reading of this bill and its quick passage so that the transfer of Mauao into the hands of iwi finally becomes a reality for the Tauranga Moana people. Kia ora tātou.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) : I am very pleased to stand in the second reading of the Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill. National supports the bill, and I support all the remarks that have been made by the Minister of Māori Affairs this afternoon. Mauao, of course, as it is known to the Tauranga Moana iwi, is more commonly known as Mount Maunganui, and it is of hugely significant cultural, traditional, historical, and spiritual importance to Ngāi Te Rangi, Ngāti Ranginui, Ngāti Pūkenga, and Waitaha, and this bill essentially sees the return of that maunga to the Tauranga Moana iwi. Therefore this measure is a reason to congratulate those iwi and to celebrate with them.

The select committee process that we went through in recent weeks was a pretty memorable sort of affair, I have to say. The Māori Affairs Committee went to Tauranga, where a very fulsome gathering of iwi elders was there to greet us, and I will come in a minute to the issue that most bothered them. I think one of the best things about being in Parliament when a transfer of this nature takes place is to go and visit with the iwi concerned to soak up the significance of it, although I think most of us were aware of that anyway—and I include in that my colleague Bob Clarkson, who filled in because he is a local member. He also has a very keen appreciation of the depth of association—the historical ties and spiritual association—of the Tauranga Moana iwi with their maunga. But in that they are not unlike other iwi, who all associate and identify themselves with their maunga or their awa.

It gave me an enormous amount of pleasure, though—and I just want to refer to this again—to see the reasonably large gathering in Tauranga. It was very respectful, but the iwi had mostly come to see the select committee about what they saw as a Clayton’s transfer of the fee simple to them. If I turn to the bill, as introduced, I see clause 7 reads: “For the purposes of any enactment … or rule of law, Mauao historic reserve must be treated as if the fee simple estate in the reserve were still vested in the Crown.” That, in combination with clause 5, “Mauao historic reserve vested in trustees of Mauao Trust”, which included a statement that the fee simple was to be returned to the Tauranga Moana iwi, had become a matter of some concern, and I think considerable hurt, to them. It seemed to them that on the one hand the Crown was giving something back to them but was taking it away in the same breath. It was a matter of such moment to them that representatives of the three tribes all turned up to voice their concerns and to see whether the select committee could do something about it.

That is not always possible to do when one is on a select committee, because obviously the two major parties, the two major players in terms of most bills, have pretty set positions, and one does not always achieve the changes that one is sometimes asked to achieve. But, fortunately, in this case the arguments that were put forward were pretty potent—

Pita Paraone: Thanks to the third party.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: Oh, of course, yes. Actually I failed to mention the third parties not because I was trying to imply that they were not influential but because the two big parties, in the sense of the traditional adversarial system, tend sometimes to dominate not just this Chamber but also the select committees. Although that did happen in this case, the two major parties and the two smaller parties, New Zealand First and the Māori Party, were all in agreement, and I think that is the main thing.

I think that the Tauranga Moana iwi will be very pleased to hear that all the parties assembled around the select committee table were in agreement. We took on board what the iwi said—that this felt like a Clayton’s transfer of their maunga back to them. The matter was of considerable pain to them. They asked us to please go away and consider the matter. That is what we did, and I am happy to say that, thanks to the input of all, a change has been made, as the Minister has outlined. Although on the face of it the words possibly do not necessarily convey that a significant change has been made, none the less I trust that the Tauranga Moana iwi are satisfied with and appreciative of what has been done to act on their request.

We have now made changes to the bill. As the Minister has conveyed, the fee simple passes to the iwi. But in fairness to the officials, one of the things that I think they were always concerned about was to ensure that the responsibilities and management obligations that go with being the owner of any piece of land—not the least of which is the Mauao historic reserve—did not transfer to the iwi. So Mauao will return to the Tauranga Moana iwi in a form that they feel is more of a proper return than it was previously, but, as has been noted, none of the obligations and responsibilities that are currently with the Crown in terms of the Reserves Act will be transferred. They will stay with the Crown, and in terms of the day-to-day management of the reserve, they will stay with the Tauranga City Council.

The select committee process was good. It was consensual, and everybody worked together to get a good result. This is again one of those moments in Parliament when an iwi, or a group of iwi, for whom an issue had been a gnawing pain in their side for a long number of years came to the Crown several years ago, to ask for the return of their maunga. The Tauranga Moana iwi have patiently come forward and achieved that. Iwi have to have the patience of Job, frankly, to get themselves through one end of a settlement like this one and out the other end while still feeling reasonably intact, but these people have done that, in their quiet, respectful, and very humble way. They have done it in a way that does them credit and makes me feel very proud, as a Māori, as Tūwharetoa, and as a member of this House. I am very proud that, ultimately, the right thing to do is being achieved more and more often in this place.

I congratulate the iwi from Tauranga Moana. I thank all my colleagues on the select committee. It is satisfying to achieve these transfers of land, and it is often fun, as well, especially when we know that after having discussions all around the table we will probably get a change that everybody can agree with, including, lo and behold, the Government members. The Government members are often the ones who hold the power in the select committees, but they too could see the utter sense and the justice of changing the wording of the bill in order to make the people feel that this is, indeed, a proper return of Mauao. So I salute the Tauranga Moana iwi, I salute their maunga, I salute their awa, and I look forward to the quick passage of this legislation through the House in order for the Tauranga Moana iwi to complete the long journey they have been on. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

Hon MAHARA OKEROA (Minister of State) : Tēnā koe te Whare, tēnā koe te Wahine e noho mai rā i runga i te tūnga teitei rā.

[Greetings to you, the House, and to you, Madam Assistant Speaker, seated there in your lofty position.]

I stand today to support the Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill. I am particularly proud to support the second reading of this bill. It represents the final hurdle for the iwi of Tauranga Moana, who have waited so patiently since the initial delegation of kaumātua visited Ministers in Wellington asking for the return of this important taonga to them. I am pleased that the bill has progressed through the Māori Affairs Committee with the full support of all parties, so that the fee simple estate can be transferred to iwi.

I will pause here to pay a special tribute to the kaumātua who submitted on the bill before the select committee. They were the ones who began this journey and they will appropriately be the holders of the fee simple estate on behalf of iwi, which is befitting to their status and their mana. I also congratulate the rūnanganui of Tauranga Moana, the mandated body, on progressing this proposal as a source of kotahitanga for Tauranga Moana Māori. I would also like to mihi to our kaumātua for their role in guiding and supporting the rūnanganui and the Crown in our discussions over the past few years. The same kaumātua spoke in support of the bill when it came before the select committee. They urged us to return the maunga to them. They very clearly reminded us that iwi never ceded the mauri and the mana of Mauao.

I also congratulate the mayor and his officials once more on their foresight, vision, and support for this bill and the council’s willingness to strengthen its relationship with iwi and the trustees.

The submitters spoke overwhelmingly in favour of the return of Mauao. Many of them, however, objected to the way in which the Crown’s ongoing role was expressed in the old clause 7. The select committee has therefore considered these concerns and recommended to the House that appropriate changes be made. The key changes to the bill are the deletion of clause 7 and the incorporation of its intent in a new clause 8. Clause 7 of the bill as introduced provided for the general law to continue to apply to Mauao and to that effect it stated: “Mauao Historic Reserve must be treated as if the fee simple estate in the reserve was still vested in the Crown.” The tone of the language used in the bill caused some concern among submitters but its intent was not well understood. The new wording has now been found and it still allows for the general law to apply as agreed by the parties, but in a less provocative way. New subclause 8(3) states: “Unless and until the reservation of Mauao historic reserve as a reserve is revoked under the Reserves Act 1977, the Crown continues to have, in relation to the reserve, the rights and obligations of the holder of the fee simple estate (including any obligations in respect of occupational health and safety, building, or rating liability legislation).” With these changes the bill will clarify which laws other than the Reserves Act will continue to impact on the management body of the Mauao Historic Reserve and which, in turn, will not become a burden or a liability to the holders of the fee simple estate.

The new wording also provides that Mauao will continue to be an iconic place for all New Zealanders to appreciate but, more than ever before, as a place of great significance as a taonga to the tangata whenua of Tauranga Moana. Despite the select committee’s recommended wordings, there is no intention to revoke the reserve status, and kaumātua specifically endorsed the scope of the agreement because it retains Mauao’s reserve status, which protects Mauao from commercialisation and alienation. The journey of this initiative, from its conception by kaumātua, through to its culmination in this bill, has involved numerous meetings and consultation hui to fine-tune the proposal. It has been discussed with the council, and consensus has been reached among four iwi. The original outcome sought is now about to reach fruition. I believe that the intention to strengthen kotahitanga among the tribes and build the relationship with the Crown is an honourable one.

As members are aware, the fee simple estate will transfer to trustees who will receive and hold the title to protect and preserve the mauri of Mauao and facilitate the maintenance of the natural physical and cultural integrity of Mauao under their trust deed. The existing management by the Tauranga City Council will continue, as appointed by the Minister of Conservation, under the Reserves Act to manage, control, and administer the reserve. Tauranga Moana iwi and the council have recently signed a memorandum of understanding that also provides for a new relationship with the Mauao Trust and the involvement of the trustees in the governance and management of Mauao.

There are real benefits here in the convergence of these goals in bringing together iwi and council in a more meaningful way, as each party brings their different areas of expertise together to manage the maunga. The mātauranga, or body of collective knowledge, that iwi hold in relation to Mauao has great potential to enrich the wider community as well. Vesting the fee simple estate in Tauranga Moana iwi gives greater recognition to this. It is not simply a matter of acknowledging their ancient history. It is the values and expertise handed down over the generations and held by iwi that are also important and increasingly relevant. The council should not be expected to manage Mauao as a historic reserve without the benefit of this expertise. Combined with the council’s infrastructure and administrative expertise, this bill should ensure that Mauao is protected and respected for generations to come.

As noted previously, the Crown and iwi acknowledge that this bill is not consideration for the settlement of any Treaty claim against the Crown. The enactment of the bill will not preclude any of the four iwi from seeking to further achieve their aspirations, to exercise rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga in respect of Mauao.

Finally, as a Labour member of the select committee I want to express my gratitude, with a sense of integrity, for the collegiality of the whole of the select committee acting in unison towards ensuring that we were able to make critical and significant changes to the wording of this bill, which enhance the position of iwi and also the Crown in its final outcome. I support the passage of this bill as a point of unity for Tauranga Moana iwi and in recognition of the mana of Mauao itself. Nō reira, huri noa i te Whare. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou katoa.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) : I endorse everything that the previous speaker, the Hon Mahara Okeroa, said in his excellent speech. To the outsider it may seem as though this is all dancing on top of a pinhead—what is in words? But the challenge for the Māori Affairs Committee, which, as the Minister said, worked in a very professional and collegial way, was to turn concepts into words that were acceptable to the tangata whenua of Tauranga.

Time and time again—in the very short time that I have been a member of Parliament—it seems to me that Parliament fails when it grabs hold of concepts and cannot adequately or professionally translate those concepts into words. An obvious example of that is the electoral finance legislation. Government members had a clear aim: they wanted to do in the National Party after the 2005 general election. But when it came to drafting the legislation, they shot themselves in the foot because they did not get the words right. As a consequence, that legislation is a shambles. The Minister of Justice makes a fool of herself every question time, the legislation will give rise to litigation, and yesterday we had the Prime Minister almost raising the white flag of surrender by saying that she knew it was a shambles and would have to be sorted out. She was acceding to what the Hon Peter Dunne had said about having a cross-party conference.

That is what happens when one does not get the words right, let alone the concepts. Of course, the Electoral Finance Act is ghastly legislation in concept as well. Therefore, it behoves members of Parliament, as legislators, to knuckle down and focus on the words.

Sue Moroney: The Exclusive Brethren wrote this speech.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Instead of cackling away like that, Sue Moroney could perhaps listen to what I say, because it is about a very important thing that we could all learn from.

We were dealing in this Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill with a total agreement between everyone on the concept that we wanted this particular historic reserve to be transferred back in accordance with agreements made between the Crown and the tangata whenua of Tauranga, but the question was how the Crown would retain some kind of residual responsibility. When I looked at the way clause 7 had been drafted my immediate reaction was that this was not just a Clayton’s transfer but it was also insulting. It is worth just focusing carefully on the words, because it states that for the purposes of the enactment the reserve “must be treated as if the fee simple estate in the reserve was still vested in the Crown.”

That is totally unacceptable terminology, given the concept of what was trying to be achieved. I know that other members of the select committee, such as the good New Zealand First member, Mr Paraone, said: “Surely to goodness, this is a matter where we are agreed on the concept, and it should not be beyond the wit of parliamentary draftsmen to come up with a form of words that are acceptable.” Therefore, as the honourable Associate Minister said a few minutes ago, clauses 7 and 8 were omitted from the bill and a new clause 8 has been inserted. I think it is a very good piece of work, and it captures exactly what all the parties intended—that is, although the reserve is transferred back to tangata whenua, the reserve status is preserved.

Clause 8 comprises a number of key ingredients so that it remains a historic reserve under the Reserves Act 1977. For that purpose, the Minister continues to have the certain functions, obligations, and powers that the Minister has under the Reserves Act 1977. The Tauranga City Council continues to have a role in this. Importantly, however, the fact that the Minister retains certain powers does not entitle the Minister to exercise the power under section 26, which is the power to vest the reserve in some other person, or the power under section 15 to exchange the land comprising the reserve or part of it. As the Associate Minister said, clause 8(3) states, importantly, “the Crown continues to have, in relation to the reserve, the rights and obligations of the holder of the fee simple estate (including any obligations in respect of occupational health and safety, building, or rating liability legislation).”

Those words capture exactly the concept that everyone intended. I congratulate the parliamentary draftsmen on acceding to the wishes of the various submitters, and I congratulate the hard-working, diligent, and amiable members of the select committee on coming up with a form of words that were acceptable.

The Māori Affairs Committee is a collegial select committee. I do not want the Labour members on that committee to get into trouble, because if I say that they are collegial and are good to work with, then it could be reported back. Those members could be told to toughen up, as people on the Justice and Electoral Committee are told to do. That committee should be a good committee to work on, but sometimes it is poisoned by having far too great an adversarial approach to legislation, which gives rise to litigation.

As John F Kennedy said in his inaugural address, “civility is not a sign of weakness,”. We are a civil bunch on the Māori Affairs Committee—as the member for Te Tai Tonga would agree—but that does not mean to say that we do not knuckle down and do some good work. I think that this bill is an example of good work. I commend the approach of the Labour members on the Māori Affairs Committee to the Labour members on other select committees, particularly the Justice and Electoral Committee. If this amiable and collegial approach had been taken to the odious electoral finance legislation, then many of the problems we are now facing with that legislation would not have occurred.

With that little bit of sermonising in mind, I join with the previous speakers in supporting the second reading of this legislation. I hope that it can be passed through all its stages. I cannot really see why we could not have passed it through all its stages this afternoon, but that is a matter for the Leader of the House. None the less, I certainly hope that we get through the remaining stages as quickly as possible.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First) : Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. E tika ana kia mihi hoki ki a koutou o Ngāi Te Rangi, Ngāti Ranginui, Ngāti Pūkenga, arā, ko Tauranga Moana Nui. Engari, kāhore anō au i wareware ki te mihi atu ki a koutou o Waitaha. Nā reira, koutou e mātakitaki mai, e hakarongo mai hoki, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, ā, kia ora mai anō tātou.

[Greetings to you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It is apt that I acknowledge you, Ngāi Te Rangi, Ngāti Ranginui, Ngāti Pukenga, from the Great Harbour of Tauranga. But I have not forgotten you, Waitaha, as well. So those of you watching and listening as well, greetings to you, greetings to you, and greetings once again to us.]

I preface my speech by acknowledging the tribes of Tauranga Moana, who are either watching or listening to this debate.

There is a saying within Māoridom: ahakoa he iti, he pounamu—although small it is a treasure. I make reference to the size of the Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill. It is small in comparison with the many bills that come before this House. It contains only 16 clauses. Although many of us may think that it is not of too much importance, I assure members that for the people of Tauranga Moana it is a very, very important bill. It is my privilege to take a call on the second reading of this bill.

Many of the earlier speakers have alluded to what was originally clause 7. I too acknowledge the importance of that clause, which has become clause 8. It should be a reminder to Māori groups who are in the process of signing agreements with the Crown. The representatives of Tauranga Moana who appeared before the Māori Affairs Committee indicated that although they were not very happy with a particular provision, they had gone ahead and signed the agreement. They actually came to the select committee to seek the committee’s assistance to change that provision. This was not new to me as a member of that committee, given that we have had to consider a number of Treaty settlements. I acknowledge that this matter is not a Treaty settlement, but there are some similarities, in that after the iwi had signed their agreement with the Crown they came before the select committee to seek to change the agreement to what they would like it to be. However, due to the collegiality that previous speakers have referred to, we all agreed that we could achieve the same thing by changing the wording. I acknowledge the tenacity of the iwi of Tauranga Moana in pushing for this change.

I also acknowledge Te Rūnanganui o Tauranga Moana, who acted at the behest of their elders. Some members of te rūnanga were not happy to sign, but their elders pushed them to enter into this agreement, and they did so although they believed that it should not be signed. I acknowledge them, because I think that when people take heed of what their elders say, even in the face of what they themselves think is right and wrong, their showing that respect ought to be acknowledged. Certainly, members of Te Rūnanganui o Tauranga Moana exercised that respect.

I will raise another issue. There was a submission from a group known as Waitaha. I acknowledge the representatives of Waitaha, because in comparison with the rest of the submitters they were of a younger generation. I really had respect for the way they presented their concerns about this bill. They did it in the knowledge that many of the people in that same room did not support what they were saying. The way they presented their case was admirable.

Their cause has not been lost. I will read out clause 14(1) of the bill, “Waitaha statement of recognition”, which states “The Crown, Ngāi Te Rangi, Ngāti Ranginui, and Ngāti Pūkenga acknowledge the statement of recognition of Waitaha in Schedule 3.” I will also read out schedule 3 so that it is placed in Hansard and so that the descendants of Waitaha will know that the efforts of their representatives at the select committee hearing were not in vain. Schedule 3 states: “This statement of recognition reflects the history to which Waitaha subscribes, but it does not recount that history in full. Waitaha’s history will sit alongside other iwi and hapū histories and altogether these histories make up the diverse relationships that are attributed to Mauao.

For Waitaha, that place is borne of the occupation of the maunga by Tutauaroa (the son of Waitaha), his son Taiwhanake, and Taiwhanake’s son Kinonui. Tutauaroa moved to Otamarakau, leaving Taiwhanake to maintain Waitaha’s presence on Mauao. Ngāti Ranginui and Waitaha occupied Mauao, later followed by Ngāi Te Rangi after the Battle of Kokowai. Mauao continues to be an integral part of Waitaha’s history and their tribal future.

For Waitaha, the enduring protection of Waitaha’s ancestral associations and historical connections with Mauao is paramount.”

The elders, the kaumātua and the kuia, who appeared before the select committee recognised that connection. They also recognised that they could not turn their backs on the connection that Waitaha was claiming to Mauao. I again congratulate the representatives of Waitaha on the stance they took.

It is important to reiterate that this bill is not as a result of a claim to the Waitangi Tribunal. It stands outside of that process, and it will not impinge on the claims that will likely come from the people of Tauranga Moana.

In conclusion, I congratulate all those who were responsible for this bill, and I look forward to its third reading. But I ought to say that I support the comment made by a speaker from National that because of the size of the bill, there is not any reason why we cannot deal with the third reading now. However, there is due process to follow, and I am a supporter of due process. New Zealand First certainly supports the second reading of this bill.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) : Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. Kei ngā mema Māori o te Whare i te pō nei, tēnā tātou.

[Greetings, Madam Assistant Speaker, and to us tonight, Māori members of the House.]

This time last week a crowd of some 350 people ascended the sacred mountain at the entrance to Tauranga Harbour, Mauao. At the peak of the 232-metre-high landmark they were inspired by a kōrero from a graffiti artist—a legal graffiti artist—called Graham Hoete or “GMAN”, founder of the clothing label REPZ and a master of the spray-can. The purpose of the hīkoi was to pay homage to the memory of Sir Edmund Hillary. In reflecting on his legacy, Hoete told the crowd that “All things are possible to those who believe.”

As we consider this bill to vest the Mauao historic reserve in the trustees of the Mauao Trust, “All things are possible to those who believe.” might well have been a good byline for documents to transfer the fee simple estate of the Mauao historic reserve from the Crown to Ngāi Te Rangi, Ngāti Ranginui, and Ngāti Pūkenga. It is apparently necessary for this bill to come forward in this way because the Reserves Act 1977 does not provide for a transfer of this nature.

I suggest that the three Tauranga Moana iwi want to believe that the Crown will demonstrate respect for their mana, for their rangatiratanga, and for their capacity to uphold the rights and responsibilities of kaitiakitanga. It seems pretty straightforward to me from their perspective—hand back the ownership of Mauao. Kāore i kō atu, kāore i kō mai; nothing more, nothing less. Would they look after it? Hell yeah, of course they would, such is the respect that those iwi place on their association with Mauao. Would they look after the interests of all New Zealanders, like the Crown says it does? Of course. But, in the end, if one is the owner—kei a koe te tikanga—that is their business.

That is what I think Tauranga Moana people are after. The iwi of Tauranga Moana and Waitaha also seek to believe that a healthy relationship can be established between them and the Crown. It is here, however, that believers may well start to have some reservations. The reason is that, for all intents and purposes, despite this bill, Mauao remains as if it is in Crown ownership. The iwi of Tauranga Moana have not been transferred any ownership rights, including the right to, at the very least, co-administer their own maunga. Instead, the nominal owners are specified as the Crown, through the Minister of Conservation, devolved to the Tauranga City Council.

Its ownership is presumably different from that identified in the preliminary archaeological survey, which reports that the Mauao historic reserve constitutes a cultural landscape representing approximately 600 years of human occupation by Tauranga Moana iwi. The archaeological survey reports the first human settlement in the 13th century, the expelling of the Ngā Mārama people, the battle of Kōkōwai, and, finally, the Ngāpuhi incursion into the Bay of Plenty.

That is 600 years of history prior to the Tauranga City Council. One would have thought that that would give the three Tauranga Moana iwi a special status. Yet nearly a year ago, in May 2007, the chair of the Te Rūnanganui o Tauranga Moana, the chairs of the three Tauranga Moana iwi rūnanga, and a representative of Waitaha indicated that “The draft agreement continues to impinge on and/or diminish our mana with respect to exercising our rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga over Mauao.”

Although this comment was made while the agreement was in draft form, the sentiments are harsh enough to suggest that they represent the exact opposite of the view that was intended in the commitment to building healthy relationships. Here is the rub. This is the consistent and universal tension working against such relationships with the Crown when the alleged rights of the Crown appear, as in the case of Mauao, to completely stifle the ownership interests of Ngāi Te Rangi, Ngāti Ranginui, and Ngāti Pūkenga.

The most significant point of tension is focused on clause 7 of the bill, as other members have talked about, which has the effect of the Crown continuing to bear the rights and obligations as if it were the owner of the reserve. The 27 submissions repeatedly addressed their concerns around this clause, which retains the general provision in the law that the Mauao historic reserve is vested in the Crown. Submissions variously opposed Crown ownership and council control, as I heard when I attended the select committee hearing in Tauranga. The New Zealand Māori Council insisted that the land should be returned to iwi ownership without conditions, and without clauses that take it back out of iwi control.

Colin Bidois from Te Rūnanganui o Tauranga Moana suggested that clause 7 dilutes the fullness of ownership, whereas Maru Samuels of Ngāi Te Rangi explained that clauses 7 and 8 would work only if there was a joint management structure with iwi. The suggestion from Rahera Ohia of Te Au Mārō o Ngāti Pūkenga that clause 7 be either removed or amended to clarify its application and scope must be given serious consideration during the Committee of the whole House debate, as other members have alluded to.

Another recurring theme was around the mismanagement of communications undertaken during the passage of the bill. Brian Dickson of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Te Rangi advised the committee that the negotiations led by Te Rūnanga o Tauranga Moana were ill managed and poorly communicated, leading to tensions flaring throughout the rohe. Another Ngāi Te Rangi submitter, Hauata Palmer, reinforced this point, concluding that the Crown had used the process to manipulate a preordained outcome, creating much turmoil and division along the way. Colin Reeder confirmed these views, saying that the process imposed by the Crown had lacked integrity and was fundamentally flawed.

None of this helps much in igniting public interest that this bill is indeed necessary and can well make a difference. Under the circumstances, I suspect that other iwi may well have given up, but not the iwi of Tauranga Moana. They will continue to negotiate, to listen, and to hold strong to the line. They will continue to put forward their views about how this arrangement could work.

HuikākahuKawe of Ngāti Ranginui recommended that useful grounds for discussion might include environmental management, commercial development, and the impact of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 upon Ngāti Ranginui. RāheraŌhia raised the question of whether the bill covers intra-Crown payments. The Mauao trustees themselves outlined issues they defined as being outstanding, suggesting that for the return of Mauao to have more substance the implications of the Foreshore and Seabed Act must be factored into the discussion, as well as issues around resourcing and compensation.

It is impossible to read through the submissions, to talk with the people, and to sit and spend time with those who have believed that Mauao will one day be returned to them and not feel their pain and disappointment. As one koroua expressed to me in providing advice about how we might vote: “Ko auakōreroanō, arā, ko te tūmanako ka whakahokia mai tōmātou maunga tūturu ki a mātou”, meaning “It’s the same old story. We hope that our mountain will be returned to us.” All things are possible to those who believe.

I mihi to the iwi of Tauranga Moana who have believed that the entire Mauao historic reserve would be returned, and that the process and outcome would uphold the mana of the three iwi. What has been achieved is very much a Clayton’s settlement, as referred to by other members—ownership in title only. The Minister of Conservation has an overwhelming role in determining how this maunga will be managed in the future. Despite this, and in spite of the inflexibility of the Crown in refusing to agree to any of the solutions put forward by the iwi, the iwi have begun negotiations with the Tauranga City Council to establish a partnership management with them.

The Māori Party puts on record our admiration for the strong resolve and passionate determination of the people. They negotiate memorandums of understanding at the local level, to try to improve their situation. They always wanted joint management of Mauao, and although it was considered outside the scope of this bill, we in the Māori Party recognise the courage of the iwi of Tauranga Moana in moving on.

Of course, we are pleased that the select committee has recommended the removal of the offending clause 7, which spelt out in explicit detail that full ownership had not been provided to the iwi. The jury is out as to whether the new clause 8 is sufficient to restore the faith of the people. But we will support the iwi of Tauranga Moana and Waitaha in their decision to do what they can to advance their own affairs. The Māori Party will always promote the leadership of iwi in doing the best they can for their people, often under the most trying of circumstances. It is for these people that we support this bill at its second reading.

DAVE HEREORA (Labour) : I stand as the chairperson of the Māori Affairs Committee in support of the Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill. I preface my comments by saying that Māori members of the committee obviously have some links and ties to discussions surrounding the whenua, and we all declare a conflict of interest because of that. In this case in particular, as I was the chair of the committee, I reiterated that fact, given my links to Tauranga Moana, where my whenua is, and Matakana Island, which lies right beside Mauao, Mount Maunganui, where my tīpuna lie. I recall as a younger lad, at the age of 17—about 20-odd years ago, which makes me 37 now—running up the Mount as part of a normal routine. I was a bit slimmer then, and I think that nowadays I would gently amble up. I wanted to preface my contribution by indicating that conflict of interest.

The Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill was referred to the Māori Affairs Committee for consideration in December last year. The committee heard the public submissions on the bill in Tauranga Moana, and, I suppose, to that end, acknowledged that that was the first time the Māori Affairs Committee had agreed to meet during the adjournment to deal with this bill, which shows the willingness of all members in relation to the work on this bill.

It should come as no surprise that the submissions were overwhelmingly in support of the return of Mauao to Tauranga Moana iwi. Twenty-seven submissions were received, and 17 of those submitters appeared before us. They included kaumātua who are also the trustees; the iwi rūnanga o Ngāi Te Rangi, Ngāti Ranginui, and Ngāti Pūkenga; representatives of Waitaha; individual members of Tauranga Moana iwi; the Mayor of Tauranga, Stuart Crosby; and the New Zealand Historic Places Trust. We were especially grateful to hear the views of kaumātua on the bill, given their lead role in this initiative and their responsibility on behalf of the iwi as holders of the fee simple estate once the bill is passed.

The key issues raised by submitters were in relation to ownership rights and obligations as reflected in clauses 7 and 8. The committee has considered submitters’ concerns that clause 7 does not provide for the return of full ownership of Mauao to iwi and that the wording was of concern because it stated that the reserve must be treated as if the fee simple estate in the reserve was still vested in the Crown. It was felt by some that the land was being returned in name only, with all rights remaining with the Crown. We recommended that clauses 7 and 8 be deleted and that drafting changes be made to a new clause 8 to incorporate the intent of clause 7.

Mauao has the status of a historic reserve under the Reserves Act 1977. Mauao comprises three parcels of land, which are Crown land over which the Minister of Conservation has certain powers, duties, and obligations. These include a power to appoint an administrating body to manage and control the reserve subject to the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977. A clause is required in the bill to ensure—as the agreement to introduce vesting legislation provides—that all general law will continue to apply to Mauao after the vesting takes place. The intention of the clause is for the rights and obligations under, for example, occupational health and safety legislation, building legislation, and roading liability legislation to continue to be responsibilities of the Crown. However, the Crown cannot know what laws may be passed in future that could have an effect on the owners of Mauao, as further rights and obligations could be created under laws that are yet to be made.

Under the current provision in the bill the Mauao trustees will not bear any of these present or future ownership obligations. If clause 7 is removed entirely, significant legal uncertainty will arise concerning what obligations the trustees may bear and what rights they might have as owners of Mauao. We recognise the offence caused by the original wording of clause 7 and have recommended that the intent of the clause be reworded in clause 8 to address this concern.

Several submitters recommended excluding Waitaha from the bill. We do not agree with the recommendation. It is very clear to us that Waitaha have a relationship with Mauao, having resided on Mauao for 700 years and because the agreement to introduce vesting legislation provides for Waitaha’s relationship with Mauao to be recognised. We do note, however, that Waitaha was originally included equally in the proposal. Waitaha supported the final agreement on the basis of the statement of recognition of Waitaha and its ongoing representation at the management level.

The mayor has indicated that Waitaha’s status in the management of the Mauao historic reserve remains unresolved. Waitaha is represented on the council’s Mauao steering group and has been there for some time, but the recent memorandum of understanding reached between the council and the three Tauranga Moana iwi rūnunga does not currently recognise Waitaha’s relationship with Mauao.

There are clearly some issues to be ironed out around the management in future, including the matter of the involvement of the trustees. We do not, however, consider that any further changes to the bill, such as attaching the memorandum of understanding, are the appropriate way of addressing these. As we considered the submissions we discussed the suggestion that the bill be amended to provide for joint management over the Mauao historic reserve by the Tauranga City Council and the holders of the fee simple estate. The management of Mauao as a historic reserve has emerged as an important issue in this process. We considered a range of information, including the nature of the negotiated agreement, which is for the retention of the current management arrangements; the costs and infrastructure required to manage, control, and administer Mauao as a historic reserve; and the memorandum of understanding reached between the council and Tauranga Moana iwi, which reflects their aspirations in relation to Mauao.

We also heard from the Mayor of Tauranga City, who considered that iwi representation on the council’s Mauao steering committee effectively provides iwi with joint decision-making status right now. In accordance with the Mauao management plan and under the Reserves Act 1977 we heard from the Historic Places Trust, which submitted that a draft proposal is in the pipeline to register Mauao as a wāhi tapu in view of the very large number of sacred and historical sites on and around the maunga. As the council’s Mauao management plan is due to be reviewed in 2009, we are satisfied that any changes will only further enhance the protection of Mauao. As the mayor pointed out, the next logical step would be to formalise the Mauao steering group as a full standing committee.

Finally, as chairman of the Māori Affairs Committee, I would like to recognise the efforts of the submitters in coming before us and sharing their views. I also appreciate the contribution of the members of the committee. As previous speakers have indicated, it was certainly a pleasure to be able to get consensus in resolving the issues that were brought before us by submitters. I also acknowledge the sponsor of the bill, the Hon Parekura Horomia, and to that end I stand in support of the second reading of this bill and its amendments.

CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) : Tihei mauri ora. Tuia ki runga, tuia ki raro, tuia e herenga tangata, nō reira, tēnā koutou. Ki te Whare e tū nei, tēnā koe. Ki a Papatūānuku kei waho, tēnā koe. E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Ki ngā rangatira o te Whare Pāremata, tēnā koutou. Ki ngā hoa o te Whare Pāremata, tēnā koutou. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. Ko Chris Tremain tōku ingoa. Ko Tātara tōku maunga. Ko Tūtaekurī tōku awa. Ko Kel Tremain tōku pāpā. Ko tōku pāpā he tangata rongonui, he All Black. Ko Pam Tremain tōku māmā. Ko Simon rāua ko Mark ōku taina. Ko Angela tōku hoa wahine. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Behold the breath of life. Thread it above, thread it below, interweave mankind. Therefore, greetings to you. Greetings to the House standing before me, Mother Earth outside, Madam Assistant Speaker, parliamentary leaders, and fellow parliamentarians. Greetings, greetings, and greetings to you all. My name is Chris Tremain. Tātara is my mountain and Tūtaekurī is my river. My father is Kel Tremain, a famous person, an All Black. Pam Tremain is my mother. My younger brothers are Simon and Mark. Angela is my wife. Greetings, greetings, and greetings to you all.]

Madam Assistant Speaker, you may wonder why, in rising to speak to the Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill, I begin with my mihi and acknowledgment of some of my whakapapa. You may ask that question. In that mihi I mentioned two places that are very significant to me. The first is Ōtātara, which is a mountain—a small mountain, for that matter—that sits behind Taradale and is the place where the Ōtātara Pā used to sit many, many years ago. It has now been purchased by the council and sits there in perpetuity.

The Tūtaekurī River flows quietly beside Ōtātara, and is also a place of significance to me and where I was born and grew up.

Just 2 weeks ago I had the pleasure of walking to the top of Te Mata Peak as part of a remembrance for Sir Edmund Hillary. Standing on the peak and looking around Heretaunga—Hawke’s Bay—at all the different land features that are part of Hawke’s Bay, I could see out to the east Waimārama Beach and Cape Kidnappers, and to the west the Kāweka Mountains. From up there I could see Ōtātara and the Tūtaekurī; to the south, Kahuranaki, and to the north, Waipātiki Beach and Ahuriri in Napier. All of these places have significance not only to me but to many, many people in Hawke’s Bay. They are significant to many Pākehā and obviously to many from Ngāti Kahungunu and other iwi from that region. Many of us have lived in New Zealand for more than a generation and have very strong ties to the land—the whenua. For many of us, and certainly for Māori, the land is our point of reference. It is the place that we know we can return to, and we feel at one with. It really provides our sense of identity. When we sit in a pub overseas on our OE, say in London or Australia, we miss not only our families—our whānau—but features of the land. That is what we remember and sometimes pine to return to.

Mostly these features are in public ownership and access is largely available to all. Where it is not, many Kiwis would like to see some of those features returned to public ownership, and tangata whenua in particular would like to see them returned to ownership by tangata whenua in fee simple title. Many of us want access to those areas. When I stood on Te Mata Peak most of the features I saw and just mentioned were in public ownership, and that gave us the ability to access those features.

Such is the case in Tauranga, at Mauao—Mount Maunganui—and this bill returns an important taonga to the iwi of Tauranga, while still guaranteeing access to it for all New Zealanders. It is critically important to many Pākehā that we still have unfettered access to those iconic features. That is especially important to me. I understand the significance of those features to local Māori—Ngāi Te Rangi, Ngāti Ranginui, and Ngāti Pūkenga. These tribes embarked on a journey when that land was put into Crown ownership in the 1880s, and they have sought to have the fee simple title brought back under their ownership. I acknowledge and respect what the Crown has achieved here, not only returning the fee simple title to the iwi but also maintaining access for New Zealanders going forward. I feel that is critical.

The Mauao land in Tauranga is iconic also to Pākehā. The translation of Mauao is “caught by the dawn”, and that is interesting. Mauao is an iconic maunga on the isthmus of the peninsula. The mountain is 232 metres high and has a 3.4 kilometre track around the base—

Hon Darren Hughes: I thought it was 3.6 kilometres.

CHRIS TREMAIN: My reference says 3.4. It is a 45-minute walk to the top. Maybe the previous speaker Dave Hereora took a little bit longer to walk it.

Sue Moroney: He was running.

CHRIS TREMAIN: Running! It is a national playground and has amazing platforms to view out to sea and all around. We can see why it is so iconic to New Zealanders when we know that in January alone some 110,000 people either walked on the track or visited that taonga. Throughout last year 700,000 Kiwis visited that place. So it is important real estate. It is important to all Kiwis, not just to Māori.

Sue Moroney: Are you going to carve that up, as well?

CHRIS TREMAIN: It is an important piece of real estate that is very important to all Māori. Many Pākehā see the mountain as iconic and part of their identity. The bill shows that we have been able to transfer fee simple title to Māori while maintaining ongoing access for all people. That is a good thing and I support it.

A similar situation arose a few years ago at Bastion Point in Auckland. In 1990 Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei reached a settlement with the Crown of their historical claims over the Ōrākei block, including Bastion Point, after the Waitangi Tribunal had issued the Ōrākei report in 1987. As part of that settlement, ownership of the reserve lands at Bastion Point and Ōkahu Bay was transferred to Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei, with Auckland City and Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei jointly managing those lands for the use and enjoyment of the public of Auckland. The interesting thing is that that transfer was done many years ago, but, importantly, it has allowed unfettered access by Aucklanders and all New Zealanders to a key iconic piece of real estate, which they are able to access in perpetuity. I think that transfer of fee simple title while still maintaining access is where a partnership has been achieved, and that is an extremely good thing.

The way I see it, this bill is a benchmark for moving forward in terms of key iconic and culturally significant landmarks.

I have no problems at all with places of outstanding cultural significance being returned to tangata whenua, conditional upon unfettered access being available to all Kiwis. I see Bastion Point as a case in point where that has been successfully achieved—Aucklanders have had no problems with accessing it.

Most Kiwis increasingly identify with landmarks here in Aotearoa. As I mentioned, in Hawke’s Bay there are all sorts of different landscapes and features, and Kiwis increasingly relate to the land and wish to care for it. To this end, I say that although tangata whenua may claim first right, they do not have the only right. They do have first right but Pākehā need access to these key bits of land. In this bill we have seen a partnership in that respect. I think that this land is going to be enhanced by the relationship between iwi and the council. As my colleague pointed out recently, there is the ability for ongoing and better management by the iwi up there, which is fantastic.

I stand in support of the bill, and I close with the whakataukī I commenced with that, in short, means: “Bind it above, bind it below, bind us together.” In this case, I think we have been able to achieve that with a partnership on Mauao, in Tauranga. Tuia ki runga, tuia ki raro, tuia te herenga tangata.

[Thread it above, thread it below, interweave mankind.]

• Bill read a second time.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) : I am pleased to follow upon the heels of the completion of the second reading of the Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill with the Committee stage of this bill. Part 1 deals with changes to the Maniapoto Maori Trust Board Act. This, of course, is an omnibus bill that amends several pieces of legislation from the portfolio of the Minister of Māori Affairs. As I say, the Maniapoto Maori Trust Board Act comes under scrutiny here with some changes to the legislation. There are four changes but the two most important are the name change for the Maniapoto council of elders and the proposals to formalise a new regional management committee for Kāwhia Harbour. The name change issue is dealt with under clauses 4 and 7.

These amendments give effect to a request from the Maniapoto Maori Trust Board to update its trust board legislation by reflecting a name change for its council of elders. I touched upon this in my second reading speech yesterday, but I think it bears commenting on here. The Maniapoto council of elders requested these changes. It was concerned that the current name, Te Mauri o Maniapoto, as the council is currently referred to under the Maniapoto Maori Trust Board Act, suggests that it holds the mauri of Maniapoto. As Māori members and others in the Chamber will appreciate, this is an unusual use for that word. The council of elders is of the view that the mauri of Maniapoto is instead held by all the marae of Maniapoto and it requested of the Minister or his ministry, maybe both, that the name be changed to Te Kaumātua Kaunihera o Maniapoto—the Kaumātua Council of Maniapoto. All of the board, obviously, was in agreement with that.

This in essence appears like a housekeeping change, but when we go to the thrust of why the board members wanted that change, in terms of the use and the embodiment of all of the meanings behind the word “mauri”, it is understandable that this is more than housekeeping for them—it goes to the very heart of the way their elders want to describe themselves. As I say, both clauses 4 and 7 effect this name change.

The other issue of note in Part 1 is in clauses 6 and 13, which see the establishment of a new Maniapoto Regional Management Committee. Again, these amendments give effect to a request by the Maniapoto Maori Trust Board to formalise a seventh regional management committee for Kāwhia Harbour. Māori trust boards are empowered to establish committees. The Maniapoto Maori Trust Board currently has six regional management committees that represent the interests of 43 Maniapoto-affiliated marae. Under section 6 of the Maniapoto Maori Trust Board Act a representative from each of the regional management committees sits on the trust board and has full voting rights in trust board matters.

In 2003 five Kāwhia Harbour marae came together to request a separate regional management committee to represent them. This proposal grants that request. Although the committee was asked to look more closely at this change, because a couple of submissions were made to us that would suggest the change was not appropriate, all was well when we asked Te Puni Kōkiri to have a look at the matter again. As it turns out the proposal will go through, so the Maniapoto Maori Trust Board will have its membership increased from 14 to 15, and the number of regional management committee representatives on the trust board will increase from six to seven.

These amendments will formally provide for the representation of the new regional management committee on the trust board. With that representation, of course, comes, first of all, a representation on behalf of one’s constituency; second, access to funding; and, third, the right to vote on all Maniapoto Maori Trust Board matters. So it is very important for this group of five representatives from the Kāwhia Harbour marae that this change is effected, because, as I say, it adds to their representation on the tribal trust and gives them a voice in the overall affairs of the trust.

My colleague Chris Finlayson yesterday mentioned how he and I had recently spent a very pleasant and productive afternoon with the Maniapoto Maori Trust Board—it very kindly hosted us—and this legislation being before us was obviously a matter for some small discussion. It also gave a plank for us to touch on other matters that are in the trust board’s domain right now, including its Treaty settlement negotiations, or maybe the lack of them.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First) : Tēna koe, Mr Chairman. On behalf of New Zealand First I want to make a contribution to this particular bill and talk to Part 1, which covers clauses 3 to 8. I will elaborate on some of the things that the previous speaker touched on, particularly in reference to the name change. Being a Māori, I can understand the reason for wanting to change the name from Te Mauri o Maniapoto to Te Kaumātua Kaunihera o Maniapoto, because in terms of the word “mauri” itself—if I can just use the Māori phrase to describe this word: “he kupu tino hōhonu”—it has more than just an ordinary meaning. “Mauri” is talking about the life force, the life essence, of, in this case, Maniapoto. For a group of people to have placed on them the responsibility for the mauri of their tribe may be a little bit beyond what one would expect, so I can understand the need, or the reason, for wanting to change the word to “kaumātua”. I think that that in itself actually reflects the importance that kaumātua can play in the life of their iwi in these days, and I certainly want to support the reason for the change.

I also make the point that this change was made at the request of the board. I can understand why the board would want to make this request, given the deep meaning that the word “mauri” has, and to place that sort of responsibility on kaumātua, on those whom we would regard as mere mortals, is something that I do not think should happen, in spite of whatever their status—their mana—within their tribes might be. New Zealand First certainly supports the intention of the name change.

I want to refer to the membership of the board. The bill states that the board will consist of 15 persons. In particular, clause 6(c) states: “1 member appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Minister of Māori Affairs, nominated by, and representing, Te Arikinui;”. I would have thought that Te Arikinui had the authority, without having to cede to a Minister of the Crown, with all due respect and without demeaning the office of the Governor-General, to have a direct responsibility in terms of nominating his or her representative on this board. I initially had the same thought with regard to Te Kaumātua Kaunihera o Maniapoto, but then I could not put it in the same position as that of Te Arikinui. Then again, who am I to contradict what quite clearly the members who represent Maniapoto through their trust board had asked to be done?

I cannot see anything else in Part 1 that we should be concerned about, other than to say that unlike other Māori trust boards, this board will continue to maintain its entity and its responsibilities for its iwi.

DAVE HEREORA (Labour) : I will start off by acknowledging in Part 1 of the Māori Purposes Bill (No 2) the Maniapoto Maori Trust Board Act, and to say that Te Puni Kōkiri and the Minister of Māori Affairs have been working with the trust since 2003 on the proposal to establish a new regional management committee to represent the marae of Kāwhia Harbour and the five marae that seek the establishment of a new regional management committee for the Kāwhia Harbour region. The trust board has organised regular hui to consult with the marae members on the proposal and to provide a demonstration of sufficient support for a new regional management committee for Kāwhia Harbour.

Earlier I raised an issue in relation to this matter, and I will recollect my thoughts on it and share with the Committee the information that some submitters opposed the bill’s proposal to establish a new regional management committee for Kāwhia Harbour to represent Te Māhoe Pā and Mōkai Kāinga marae. On hearing from these submitters, the Māori Affairs Committee asked the officials to seek the views of the Maniapoto Maori Trust Board, which requested this amendment, and the views of representatives of the two marae at issue. It was clear to the committee, on hearing from the trust board and representatives of Te Māhoe Pā and Mōkai Kāinga marae, that these marae wanted to be represented by a new regional management committee and that the submissions received were not supported. To that end, I acknowledge the request of the Minister of Māori Affairs that the committee consider correcting its report to accurately describe who was consulted on this issue. I gave a commitment that I would take that request back to the committee for its consideration.

The committee, in its deliberation yesterday, considered this matter. After some robust discussion we felt that the commentary, as presented to the House, was not in need of correction, and the basis for that generally surrounded one’s interpretation of the report. But the committee felt that if there were a need to rectify this issue, then there would be a number of options at our disposal to do so. Of those options the committee felt that it would probably make good sense to raise the matter in the Committee of the whole House stage and to say that, in considering this concern, the select committee felt that the issue came back to one’s interpretation of the commentary and where that sat.

To that end, the select committee felt that the issue would not impede the progress of the bill, and it is my understanding that there was support, and that there continues to be support, for this bill. Again, I suppose it was an issue surrounding the point of whether there was a need to revisit the situation by bringing back to this House an amended version of the commentary. As I have stated earlier, the committee’s consensus decision on the matter was that we would raise this issue at the Committee stage and formally subscribe to the fact that we have agreed that there was no intention to misinterpret the findings within that report, and that it was left to one’s individual determination as to where that interpretation sat.

Overall, we are still quite pleased with this bill as it is in the Committee stage, particularly with Part 1, and we are pleased with its progress. I stand in support of the bill.

• Part 1 agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): The debate on this part includes debate on schedule 1.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) : Part 2 deals with the Maori Trust Boards Act 1955. It amends that Act to specify, first of all, a minimum voting age of 18 for Māori trust board elections. It ensures that past Māori trust board elections are not invalid because of under-age voting. It also reflects changes to the annual payment to be made by the Crown to the Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board under a new agreement relating to Lake Taupō.

Clauses 10 and 13 deal with the minimum voting age. The amendment seeks to align the minimum voting age—under the Maori Trust Boards Act it is 20 years, and under the Maori Fisheries Act it is 18 years—in order to eliminate statutory compliance issues for those Māori trust boards that must comply with both Acts. Not all Māori trust boards are in that category, but some are, and this issue was raised from the outside by a legal representative of some of the affected Māori trust boards. Five trust boards also act as trustees of their iwi’s fisheries settlement entity and they are subject to both their own Act—the Maori Trust Boards Act 1955—and the Maori Fisheries Act 2004. In practice, this means that when iwi members vote for members of their Māori trust board, they are also voting for the trustees of their iwi fisheries settlement entities.

There is confusion over who is eligible to vote in these elections. Adult beneficiaries, or those who are entitled to vote, are not defined in the Maori Trust Boards Act and, therefore, section 4 of the Age of Majority Act applies, making an adult beneficiary under that Act a person aged 20 years or over. In contrast, the term “adult” is defined in the Maori Fisheries Act as a person aged 18 years or over. I suppose some young people will be a little bit alarmed to find they will have to wait until they are 20 before they are classed as adults in this respect when, for most purposes in our everyday lives as New Zealanders, 18 seems to be the more consistent, accepted age.

As has already been said, there are some compliance issues for those boards that have to comply with both Acts. Clause 10 will remedy the issue by inserting a definition in the Maori Trust Boards Act that an adult beneficiary is a person of 18 years of age or over. That is a very simple solution. The clause also provides that the new minimum voting age will apply to a Maori Trust Board’s first election after the commencement of the amendment. Clause 13 will update regulations to include that.

The 15 Maori trust boards were consulted on the proposal. Nine supported the amendment and six did not respond. The Ministry of Fisheries and Te Ohu Kaimoana were also consulted, and they support the proposed amendment. It is a very sensible change, again requested from outside Parliament and outside the bureaucracy. It is designed to give better overall management for those iwi who are now managing both their traditional assets under their trust boards’ legislation and their fisheries assets under the Maori Fisheries Act.

The other matters of note in the bill are the changes to the annual payment to be made by the Crown to the Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board. This follows the settlement that was forged between the Crown and Tūwharetoa in September 2007. It updates issues surrounding the balance of property rights held by the board in relation to Lake Taupō. The genesis for that was the vesting of the Lake Taupō bed and its tributaries in Tūwharetoa in 1992, under the National Government. This is a similar arrangement to the one we have just finished talking about, in relation to the Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill, where the land in question—in this case, the lake bed—is vested back in the name of the iwi concerned. All public access to the lake will be maintained as previously, as it always was, but there will be a recognition of certain rights now, and there will be some division in terms of income made from the lake, as well. Responsibility for the daily management of Lake Taupō and its bed is held by a combined committee of both the trust board and officials.

A colleague of mine was talking about this earlier, in relation to how we as New Zealanders can progress these issues where iwi want more than the symbolic return of land, as we saw in the Mauao case. Iwi want the land to be vested in them, but that is not in any way to impinge on the rights of their fellow New Zealanders. And that is the case here. The changes in this part are designed to address the balance of property rights issues that were not addressed in 1992, and to reflect certain payments from the Crown to the trust board in relation to the rights, revenues, and rents from the lake.

I think these issues are definitely more than housekeeping matters, as the Minister has so often referred to them in the amendment to the Maori Purposes Act. They go to the heart of that Act. They look minor, on the face of it, but in fact they are very, very important. Like the Maniapoto Maori Trust Board and the amendments there, these amendments are also very important to the trust boards concerned, in terms of minimum voting rights and in respect of the Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board.

It is also very important that something that was started in 1992 is concluded now, is tidied, and that overall the enhancement of the relationship between the Crown and the iwi concerned is progressed even further. That is what we, particularly the Māori members, want to see in this Chamber. I think most of us, if not all of us, are here to progress these matters—not just on behalf of Māori but because they are good for New Zealand and for New Zealanders. I think the speech given by my colleague Chris Tremain demonstrates the level of understanding that has gone on over the last 30 years in particular with regard to Māori claims and Māori rights, and it can only be applauded. We should not forget that New Zealand is watched by other nations that have indigenous peoples who also pursue their rights in the same way that Māori people do—maybe not as well sometimes, but maybe that says more about the psyche of New Zealanders and ultimately their fairness and their wish to see things made right eventually. Luckily, Māori are very patient people, and ultimately something good and just comes out of these changes. These are good changes; we support them. Thank you.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First) : Tēnā koe, Mr Chairman. I want to follow on from the previous speaker and remind the Committee that Māori do not have a mortgage on passion. Perhaps that is why we in New Zealand First are more focused on what is best for New Zealand.

In supporting this Māori Purposes Bill (No 2) and in talking to Part 2, where changes are recommended to the Maori Trust Boards Act 1955, we say that it is important that the democracy that the rest of the country is able to enjoy applies to the beneficiaries of Māori trust boards. These amendments are made to accommodate the five Māori trust boards that have taken on the responsibilities outlined in the Maori Fisheries Act 2004. I am not quite sure whether this will be limited to just the five Māori trust boards, as the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission has continued to allocate fishing quota. I know that over the past week or so two further iwi groups, Te Aupōuri and Ngāti Ruanui, have received their allocation. I am not quite sure whether the Te Aupōuri Māori Trust Board will take on this responsibility. If it does, then this bill would need to apply to it as well.

In respect of the interpretation of “adult beneficiary”, we have often made reference to the importance of young people and I know that in the description of young people age 18 is included. Be that as it may, it is important in terms of the Maori Fisheries Act that the entitlement for 18-year-olds to vote also applies to their Māori trust board. This part of the bill certainly provides for that.

The other issue in Part 2 is in respect of the Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board. I will not say too much about that other than to say that it is important that the arrangement that the board has made with the Crown is carried out in a manner that does not conflict with the intention of that payment, and that the Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board is able to carry out its duties according to the law of the land.

A question was raised in the select committee consideration of the bill about validation and whether this change would affect those decisions that have been made by some boards that have carried out their elections. If a beneficiary aged 18 is able to vote under one particular Act, it just makes sense that there should be some continuity for that age group. This part of the bill certainly provides for that. The question was raised as to how that links in with the Maori Fisheries Act. This part certainly addresses that issue. As the report from the Māori Affairs Committee said, should there be any concerns about that then the costs of validating those elections—those decisions made by the trust boards as a consequence of their election process—should be met by the Crown. Although we might think that this is an exception in terms of validating previous elections, should there be some concern then people should not be afraid to carry on with their concern because of the cost issue. I would recommend that if that were to occur, then beneficiaries and trust boards alike should carry it through.

On the fact of it, the only changes to the Maori Trust Boards Act are those I have outlined. We should give support to this part.

• Part 2 agreed to.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) : Part 3 deals with amendments to the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975—legislation as important as any in the history of this Parliament.

I think the Waitangi Tribunal was a creation of the Hon Matiu Rata in 1975. It was probably the only constructive contribution he made to political life, but it was a very important contribution. In 1984 the jurisdiction of the tribunal was extended to cover historical claims dating from 1840. Throughout the 1990s there was an outstanding performance by the National Government as the Rt Hon Doug Graham and the Rt Hon Jim Bolger achieved wonderful things by settling a large number of claims, starting with the fisheries claim in 1992.

Since then there has been a big gap when nothing has been done. This afternoon I do not want to focus on that big gap. I see the member for Otaki going red with embarrassment—rightly so—because it is an appalling performance by a do-nothing Government.

Sue Moroney: Is the Government doing too much or too little? They can’t keep a straight line on it.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I want to focus on the changes that were introduced by the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, and I suggest that Sue Moroney sit quietly and listen. Clause 15 amends section 4. For the benefit of Ms Moroney, I say that section 4 establishes the tribunal. Section 4(2) sets out the composition of the tribunal. The tribunal is to be chaired by a judge or retired judge of the High Court, or the Chief Judge of the Māori Land Court, and that position is currently held by a distinguished judge, Judge Joe Williams.

Mr Paraone has introduced a member’s bill to try to deal with some alleged conflict of interests, but that is not germane to this debate. Even though his bill is misguided, I am not going to dwell on it because that would be contrary to the Standing Orders. Instead, I am going to focus on subsection 2(b) of section 4, which is proposed to be amended by the Māori Purposes Bill (No 2). This subsection states that the tribunal shall consist of “Not less than 2 other members and not more than 16 other members to be appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Minister of Maori Affairs made after consultation with the Minister of Justice.”

What is proposed by clause 15 is that the number of persons who may serve on the tribunal be increased from 16 to 20. The National Party says that this is a good change, because there is a lot of work still to be done by the tribunal. Although the tribunal has published a large number of very good reports over the years, there is still work to be done. In order to achieve justice in a speedy manner there needs to be more members serving on the tribunal. We have no problem with that proposal.

As I was reading section 4 of the Treaty of Waitangi Act in preparation for the debate, I came across subsection (5), which I will mention just briefly. The Ministry of Justice is required to: “furnish such secretarial, recording, and other services as may be necessary to enable the Tribunal to exercise its functions and powers.” The point I make—and the National members made it in the Māori Affairs Committee—is that it is all very well to increase the number of tribunal members, but the Ministry of Justice and the Minister of Justice have to ensure that the tribunal is properly resourced, not just in human resources, which of course are important, but in other resources, so that the tribunal can carry out its functions and powers. There has to be an end to the stop-start hearings that the tribunal has had to endure. That can happen only if the Ministry of Justice properly resources the tribunal, which has not been properly resourced for years.

The second section to be amended is section 6, which on the face of it is a rather dry legalistic section but which actually reflects the history of Treaty settlements since 1992. It is a very important section. Rather than simply deal with it in a perfunctory way, I want to go through it in a little bit of detail for the benefit of the Committee. The section deals with the jurisdiction of the tribunal to consider Treaty claims. The idea is that the section is amended to provide that when a claim is settled, the jurisdiction of the tribunal to inquire into claims in respect of those matters is ousted, and that the tribunal will not have jurisdiction to inquire or further inquire into any recommendation arising out of that particular claim.

It is proposed that subsections (8) to (32) of section 6 be deleted, and that instead of constant amendments of this section, references will be put in a schedule of the Act. I think that is a very sensible way of drafting. How that escaped the draftsman’s eye some years ago—that it would be a sensible way of drafting—escapes me, frankly, because it is a bit of a nuisance to have to amend the Act every time there is a settlement. But that is the way it has had to be done for a number of years until now.

When one goes through section 6 one sees, for example, that subsection (7), which is not to be schedulised, deals with the great fisheries settlement of 1992. Well, I remember studying that subsection when I used to do work for the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission, and when there were attacks on the settlement and on the method of allocation. We had to determine whether the claims could properly be made or whether the jurisdiction of the tribunal was ousted.

Subsection (8) deals with the great Tainui settlement. Subsection (9) and a few subsequent subsections deal with the great Ngāi Tahu settlement. It goes on through the settlements of the last few years. Whenever there has been a settlement there has been an amendment to section 6 to deal with the jurisdiction of the tribunal. Another example is section 6(22), which deals with an aspect of the Ngāti Tama Claims Settlement Act 2003.

So there we have it. It is a sensible provision. It is a rather clumsy way of drafting to have to have all these amendments tacked on. As we can see, we are now up to subsection (32). It is a much more sensible legislative mechanism to have the substantive section, and then have enactments to which the jurisdiction of the tribunal is subject to be referred to in schedule 3. As I said, one can expect a lot more references in schedule 3 over the next few years as a John Key - led Government gets on with the incredibly important business of negotiating settlements. I bet the Committee—

Hon Darren Hughes: If they can make their minds up.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: —and I bet the member for Otaki that in 9 years’ time our record will make him look redder than ever.

DAVE HEREORA (Labour) : I have a couple of comments in relation to Part 3 of the Māori Purposes Bill (No 2). In previous debates on this bill, members of the Māori Affairs Committee have all congratulated each other on the collective work we have done and on the nature in which we have been working and continue to work. From time to time, as we have just witnessed, one member jumps out of the loop and expresses some negativity about the Government. But at the end of the day, collectively, the committee worked very well in dealing with the issues surrounding this bill.

Part 3 is about an extension of a discussion the committee had late last year about the proposed closing date of 1 September 2008 for historical Treaty claims, and about the Government’s intention to have them resolved by 2020. What I am alluding to is that Part 3 is about the Government’s intention to resource that process by increasing the number of Waitangi Tribunal members from 16 to 20.

I do think it is necessary, as we will be faced with a lot of negotiations surrounding claims, that we are mindful that we are adequately resourcing the process so that we end up with settlements that are enduring. It is, I think, quite important to make sure that that issue is brought to the Committee’s attention. This is about adequate resources and the Government’s intention to ensure that we follow that path.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First) : Tēnā koe, Mr Chairman. I am talking to Part 3 of the Māori Purposes Bill (No 2), which makes changes to the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. The main point of this part is to increase the number of members on the tribunal from 16 to 20. I think that is laudable, but I ask the Minister in the chair, the Hon Parekura Horomia, whether the 16 current positions have been filled. Has there been a full appointment of 16 tribunal members? There is no point in increasing the number to 20 if we have not filled the 16 positions. I must say that this very point has been overlooked during the course of this debate.

The other point I want to make about the increase of the tribunal membership from 16 to 20 is that although it might be intended to increase the resources, this bill does not say that. I just point that out. There is the expectation that if we increase the size of the tribunal, then the resources must follow. Quite clearly, as the closing date for the lodging of historical claims approaches, it is important that we have a tribunal that is suitably resourced to deal with the claims and to do so in a timely manner, without prejudicing the durability of those settlements.

I ought to say, though, that in order for the tribunal to carry out its duties, it must give due regard to what the Act says are the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, and, of course, I cannot go on without making reference to those undefined principles that are now appearing in a whole raft of legislation that emanates from this House.

Hon Darren Hughes: Introduce a bill.

PITA PARAONE: New Zealand First did try to introduce a bill. Unfortunately, we did not get the support of the House, not least of all from the member for Otaki. However, as the Minister of Statistics, he might be able to produce some figures that will give some validation to our claim. I just wanted to point that out, because I think that that is a very important part of this bill, and I hope the Minister will take a call on it.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) : I want to take a short call on Part 3. I really want to echo the point the honourable member Pita Paraone has just raised. I have certainly raised it on previous occasions. One of the provisions in this part, which is an important measure—it is important, though, only if we recognise what ought to follow—provides for the membership of the Waitangi Tribunal to be increased from 16 members to 20. The point has been made that increasing the human resource—that is, the people—is great, but, yes, I would like the Minister to take a call and tell us whether the current 16 places are filled right now. If they are not, then what is the point of this measure? I certainly can see the point of it, given the way National will deal with Treaty settlements when we get into power, which will be quite soon. There is no point in just raising the membership of the tribunal if we do not have the financial resources to accompany that. The Minister needs to tell us whether he will bring a bill to this House or at least get some policy going that will see a funding provision for the daily fees for four extra members, and for the increased sittings that one might assume will accompany the increase in membership. Also, there will be reading fees and report writing fees. If the Minister knows anything about these things, he can show it by taking a call and telling us that he has all those matters in his sights and that, yes, he will get some additional people, and that, yes, he knows exactly what funding resource and support is required to make this increase in membership a reality. It is very important, and I wait with anticipation for the Minister to take a call. Perhaps he can tell us that he has put in a Budget bid for this very thing.

The membership of the tribunal is to be increased by four members, which is a small number but it does require a certain amount of additional funding. We do not want to have to conclude that this is just a bit of window dressing, and that the Government is trying to look like it is doing something because it has made provision to appoint more of its mates to another organisation.

The Waitangi Tribunal is an important organisation. Over the past 9 years the tribunal, year on year, has had to scale back its forecasts for its hearing days, and scale back the number of reports it can produce in relation to the hearings. Basically, part-way though its financial year the tribunal has had to rejig the activities it thought it was going to carry out, and in the end found it would not be able to fulfil them.

I appreciate the opportunity to take a call. These are very important matters, and I would very much request that the Minister stand and give some assurance to members of the House, and to New Zealanders who, frankly, are in support of seeing this process completed in a just, durable, and timely way. He needs to assure us that he has all these things in his mind and that the addition of four members, if required—and we still do not know whether the current 16 places are filled—will result in a flow-on of additional resources and support to make sure that the tribunal is able to increase the speed with which it can deal with very, very complex issues. Thank you.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs) : The Māori Purposes Bill (No 2) is important legislation. It brings together a number of amendments that are critical to Māori, and each part shows that. As a result, this bill’s passage into law will be a significant milestone for Māori, and it will be well appreciated.

For example, in Part 1 the amendments formalise the establishment of a seventh regional management committee, in Kāwhia . This amendment will allow the five marae in Kāwhia to cluster together to ensure that they fully participate in decision making related to their area. Part 2 provides for a new annual payment from the Crown to the Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board under a new agreement relating to Lake Taupō—something that has been outstanding for a long, long time. This is an important event for Ngāti Tūwharetoa, who, as a result of this bill, can get on with business and realise the potential of their settlement. This part of the bill will also allow, as speakers have pointed out, our rangatahi to be fully involved in trust board matters, by allowing 18 and 19-year-old beneficiaries to vote in trust board elections. Once this bill is passed, our rangatahi will be legitimately involved in deciding who will manage the governance entities and the management of and distribution from the fisheries.

Part 3 will provide the Waitangi Tribunal with up to four additional members. This Government takes the role of the Waitangi Tribunal in our nation’s progress towards the settlement of Treaty claims very, very seriously, and we are well on track with that. I really want to mihi to that great member Matiu Rata; I think anybody who is nonsensical enough to talk ill of the dead needs to get his or her facts or marbles together. It is this commitment that has led us to respond quickly to iwi. If members travel the roadways of this nation, they will understand that several iwi are in tandem with the Government, that the Treaty settlements are well progressed by the Deputy Prime Minister in his role as the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, and that iwi are flocking in to get finality and to be as serious as this Government is about achieving that.

This bill represents the Government’s latest efforts to ensure the Waitangi Tribunal is adequately resourced, by providing it with the people to power it. This Government has increased the tribunal’s funding—I would like those members to listen to this—by 60 percent since 2001. The previous Government thought ill of the tribunal, and did not even give it any funding. Most recently the Government, in Budget 2007, injected a further $7.7 million into the tribunal over a 4-year period. This latest boost saw the funding of the tribunal rise by a further 25 percent. That is how serious we are about it.

In relation to the membership of the board, I say tēnā koe to Mr Paraone for his very supportive kōrero. There are currently 15 members of the tribunal. One member has resigned—Sir Paul Reeves—for a host of reasons, and we are currently appointing a new member to replace him.

Hon Member: Who’s that?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: It will not be the member. It is very, very serious and important that we get the other four members, because there is a lot to do in this business. A hang of a lot is going on, whether one is in Heretaunga talking about one’s awa Tūtaekurī, or whether one is up in Tūwharetoa revelling in what the Government has done in relation to Taupō-nui-a-Tia. Wherever one is, this Government is serious about the tribunal, and the finality at the end of September brings things forward. We will most certainly cherish that Māori are appreciated in this great nation. Kia ora tātou.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First) : First of all, I thank the Minister in the chair, the Hon Parekura Horomia, for responding to my question. However, I ask a further question in relation to the membership of the Waitangi Tribunal. Can the Minister tell us how many appointed members sit in on each hearing? If there is only one member per hearing, then is the Minister suggesting that 15 hearings are going on around the country at the moment? If that is not the case, then I seek clarification about this issue, because I think it is very important.

We are talking about the timely consideration of Treaty of Waitangi claims, and although this amendment to the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 is a step towards that by increasing the membership of the tribunal, the effectiveness of this increase will be awarded only by the number of sittings that take place. I wonder whether the Minister, as a matter of courtesy, might take a call in response to that question.

• Part 3 agreed to.

DAVE HEREORA (Labour) : I want to take just a short call on this part. I suppose the Māori Affairs Committee’s consideration of the amendment to the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act was not highlighted much in its discussion, but I think it is necessary that we mention it in the Committee stage. Section 277 is amended to indicate that it does not apply to Māori incorporations that had gross revenue of $25,000 or less for their most recently completed financial year. I think that amendment is a necessary one. It is basically to tidy up an inconsistency that surrounds a typographical error in the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993, and an erroneous cross-reference that inserted a new provision into the wrong section of the principal Act. I did think it was necessary that I take a call to ensure that that is highlighted to the House.

• Part 4 agreed to.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) : Clause 1 deals with the title and clause 2 deals with the commencement. The commencement in a very technical way rests upon the title itself. Clause 1 states that the title of the Act will be the Māori Purposes Act (No 2) 2007. Well, we have long gone past 2007; we are now in 2008. Obviously, the Act cannot commence from 2007. Presumably it will come into force sometime in 2008 and the procedures will ensure that the title of the Act becomes the Māori Purposes Act (No 2) 2008. If I am wrong, I am sure the Minister in the chair, Parekura Horomia, will take a call to that effect.

I guess that, generally speaking, one might say the matters that have been dealt with in the changes set out in the bill have been to enhance the purposes of Māori people, activities, and things. As so many of the proposals in this bill were proposed by Māori themselves, I guess this is an apt enough way to describe them. National obviously supports both clauses 1 and 2, provided the appropriate and necessary change is made.

Just before I take my seat, though, I want to make a comment in relation to the purposes being served under Part 3, relating to the Treaty of Waitangi. I say again—I have said this in this House before—that Matiu Rata is the person whose legacy the Waitangi Tribunal is, and I pay tribute to him. He was a wily politician and a pretty wise person, in my view. He appointed Chief Judge Durie to the Māori Land Court—one of the first judges, and the youngest judge to be appointed to the court—and around the same time he set up the Waitangi Tribunal to deal with historic claims and to look at breaches by the Crown under the Treaty of Waitangi.

In doing so he saw the difficulties that might be caused by a treaty that is in two versions, a Māori version and an English version. Although the majority of Māori signed the Māori version, obviously there is still an English one, which, understandably, Pākehā New Zealanders look to in the first place. Knowing the symbolic nature of te reo Māori—the Māori language—and seeing there could be problems between what Pākehā understood the Treaty to be and what Māori understood it to be, Matiu Rata knew that a reference to the terms or provisions of the Treaty of Waitangi itself was not necessarily going to bring us to where we know we are heading. So the term “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” was introduced right at that stage, back in 1975. The promoter of that bill was Matiu Rata, and as I have said, he was very wise and wily at the same time.

Hon Darren Hughes: Chris Finlayson was denigrating him earlier.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: I am sure he was not. He would not have been denigrating him.

I raise this matter—and it is one of the purposes of the bill so it is very much within the title clause—because Pita Paraone again made reference to the bill that he introduced to the House; again, another bill to do with Māori things—

Pita Paraone: National didn’t support it.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: No, we did not support it. Now, in discussing the role of Matiu Rata and what I think was behind his thinking when he introduced the term “the principles of the Treaty”, the honourable member Pita Paraone might come to know why I certainly would not support a change to the phrase “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi”. I say the title is apt, and we support it.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First) : I just say, for the interest of the people of New Zealand who are presently in gridlock on the motorways of our country and are listening to this debate, that we are debating the Māori Purposes Bill (No 2). The title is the Māori Purposes Bill (No 2), and one could presume that there was a “Māori Purposes Bill (No 1)”. I will just explain what happened to the No. 1 bill. Some members of the Māori Affairs Committee believe that it went a little bit too far in terms of the omnibus nature of these bills. I say to the New Zealanders who are listening to and watching this debate that although the changes being made to one or two of the pieces of legislation in this bill are small, they are very important changes for Māoridom and, indeed, for New Zealand.

Previous speakers have made reference to the proposed changes in terms of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, and have made reference to the author of that legislation, Matiu Rata. I am sure that if he were with us today he would accept the challenge of defining what the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi are, as that term is articulated in a number of the Acts of Parliament affecting our country.

I think that because of the omnibus nature of this bill, it is only proper that the title Māori Purposes Bill (No 2) be retained. Kia ora.

• Clause 1 agreed to.

• Clause 2 agreed to.

• The Committee divided the bill into the Maniapoto Māori Trust Board Amendment Bill, the Māori Trust Boards Amendment Bill, the Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Bill (No 2), and the Te Ture Whenua Māori Amendment Bill (No 3), divided into Maniapoto Maori Trust Board Amendment Bill| Maori Trust Boards Amendment Bill| Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Bill (No 2)| Te Ture Whenua Maori Amendment Bill (No 3)| pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper197.

• Bill reported without amendment.

• Report adopted.

Hon DARREN HUGHES (Minister of Statistics) : I speak in support of the second reading of the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill. I know the Hon Tariana Turia will be taking a call on this bill as well.

The Government Administration Committee spent a long time on this bill trying to come to grips with the issues that confronted it, particularly the level of submissions received from people who are very interested in access to this important information. It is a constant struggle to strike a balance on access to this data. If the information is the records of the births, deaths, marriages, and relationships registrations of people who are part of someone’s family or ancestry, then those are the sorts of statistics that that person will be very keen to know about. But at the same time, in a modern world where technology makes access to these records so much easier, we want to protect them to make sure that these records are not being used inappropriately. That is a genuine balance.

Sandra Goudie: The Government stuffed it up!

Hon DARREN HUGHES: I hear the Opposition spokesperson—I am not sure what Mrs Goudie is a spokesperson on—saying that this was some sort of stuff-up. I do not regard a select committee process that results in people’s genuine views coming forward and a bill being altered as a result of what the public have to say as being anything wrong. I think it is one of the great functions of our particular New Zealand Aotearoa parliamentary democracy that the Government of the day introduces a bill to Parliament and any member of the public or interest group can come along and not only make a submission on it, but also sit right in front of our lawmakers and put their point, make their case, and explain how this legislation is going to impact them.

As a side issue, I say that one of the things we find most humbling when foreign visitors come to visit our Parliament is that they all want to know about our select committee process, because it is the way that the ordinary person can make a change to legislation.

I think this bill is a classic example of where the Government Administration Committee has proposed key changes that take into account what a lot of the genealogy groups said. In all of our communities—I think of my own constituency of Otaki and the towns dotted throughout that electorate—there are people who take a real interest in the history of their family. There are people who like to trace things right back—hundreds of years in many cases—and the World Wide Web makes that even more of an option for people.

As I said, the select committee had to struggle with the dangers that that presents if somebody, through identity theft or identity fraud, is able to use somebody’s details in order to try to make a statement of claim of who they are to access some entitlements that they might not be able to, such as passports, social security entitlements, and all manner of things where people are required to present birth certificates. Simply enrolling in tertiary courses is another example of where birth certificates are required. As for death certificates, there is not a huge point in imitating those for any purpose, but they do show the circumstances of people’s deaths, which is very useful for people when they are charting the history of their family. If people visit an old cemetery somewhere, it is quite interesting to look around and read about people who have died a long time ago, the kinds of conditions they lived in, and the ages they died at, compared with what modern science is able to do for us now.

The bill amends the existing Act. It changes its name to recognise that other forms of relationships now have legal recognition; that comes into the title of the bill. The other aspect of the bill that is very important—and we make the point in Parliament tonight—is that the changes to the bill mean that any member of the public can still access that registry information.

• Debate interrupted.