Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Māori Affairs) : I move, That the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill be now read a second time. In doing so, I would like to acknowledge the previous Minister of Māori Affairs for the work on which this bill is based. Tēnā koe, Parekura. Nāu i para te huarahi i tēnei pire. This bill is extremely significant, not in the least because of the scale of what is involved. As of March 2007 the Māori Trustee acted as a trustee or agent for over 188,000 owners and more than 2,094 properties covering 11,658 acres.

The concept of a Māori Trustee is one that has an interesting history. The need for a Māori Trustee arose because of the intergenerational effects of successive colonial and post-colonial land policies. There is no dispute over the fact that Māori customary rights over land are complex. Different kinship groupings and sub-groupings can have rights to use land or resources in different ways or at different times in the same area. By contrast, the English-based legal system that came to apply in New Zealand put in place exclusive and individualised title to land. I guess it is the difference between the right to occupation and the right of ownership. In this process tangata whenua—literally, the people of the land—were permanently separated from their land. The whenua was extracted from the tangata. In other cases, children succeeded to their parents’ individual interests in Māori land. Inevitably, much Māori land became scattered, small blocks, each with many owners. In many instances today the Māori Trustee looks after land because the owners cannot be found or cannot manage the land themselves. It is important, therefore, that the Māori Trustee is an effective organisation, able to carry out its many functions. The bill introduces significant changes relating to the Māori Trustee. In particular, it establishes the Māori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation, and changes the way in which income is paid to the beneficiaries.

When the original Māori Trustee and Māori Development Amendment Bill had its first reading last year, the Māori Party did not support it. We did not support it, because we were concerned about the proposal that was then included in the bill to transfer $35 million of the Māori Trustee’s general purpose fund to a new body promoting Māori economic development. It was also questionable whether the Māori Trustee would, in fact, be able to be independent.

During the last term of Parliament, I had the privilege of being the deputy chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, which considered the bill. The Māori Affairs Committee looked at the very issues that concerned us. So last year, after careful and at times agonising scrutiny, the Māori Affairs Committee divided the original bill into two. The bill now before us, the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill, sets up the Māori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation. This bill received the unanimous support of the Māori Affairs Committee. The provisions relating to the establishment of a new statutory corporation to promote Māori economic development and to transfer money from the general purpose fund are in the second bill, the Māori Trustee and Māori Development Amendment Bill.

I will be giving careful consideration to the best ways of encouraging Māori economic development and to what, if any, legislation will be required in this area. I thank the 15 submitters who provided submissions to the original bill, and the approximately 2,000 Māori who came along to earlier consultation hui in 2007 to discuss the proposals to establish the Māori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation.

The bill returns to the House with a small number of minor amendments that clarify aspects of the bill, and I shall refer to these later. I also intend moving some minor technical amendments to the bill in the Committee stage. These will mainly tidy up the effects of dividing the original bill and will change a date in the bill to reflect the passage of time.

One of the key changes progressed by this bill is in establishing the Māori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation. Submissions to the select committee and earlier consultation with Māori stakeholders indicated widespread support for having a stand-alone Māori Trustee, provided that the trustee was funded at a sustainable level. I am committed to ensuring that the new stand-alone Māori Trustee is able to operate as an effective organisation and is able to fulfil the trustee’s responsibilities to Māori. That is very important to me.

Last year decisions were made to significantly increase the operational funding of the Māori Trustee. Ongoing operational funding has been effectively doubled. Additional transitional and capital funding will also be provided to the Māori Trustee. Decisions were also made to write off the Māori Trustee’s accumulated debt to the Crown once this bill is passed. This debt was $61,343 million at the end of June 2008. These significant funding decisions will ensure the sustainability of the Māori Trustee as a stand-alone entity and will enable the Māori Trustee to provide enhanced services to Māori. I am confident that these initiatives place the Māori Trustee in a sound financial position for the future.

As a stand-alone entity, the Māori Trustee will be listed in schedule 4 of the Public Finance Act 1989. The Māori Trustee will be required to produce an annual report and statement of service performance. This provides a balance between the Māori Trustee’s need for independence and the need for reporting arrangements that provide accountability for public funding.

At present, the Māori Trustee is an office conferred on a public servant employed in a Government department. In future, the Māori Trustee will be a person appointed specifically to that position. The appointment will be made by the Minister of Māori Affairs, and will be based on merit. I have previously had concerns about the process of appointing. However, Ministers are accountable to the public and to Māori through well-established administrative, political, and legal processes. Many significant appointments, such as the appointment of judges, are made by Ministers or on the recommendation of Ministers. I will ensure that the processes supporting appointment include appropriate consultation. I want to make that commitment very clear here today. I intend to give priority to the consultation process to ensure that the beneficial owners of Māori land have due notice to advise me on what will best meet their needs from the office and role of the Māori Trustee. The Māori Trustee Amendment Bill also gives the Māori Trustee the power to appoint a Deputy Māori Trustee. This will help the new stand-alone organisation to operate efficiently.

The bill makes another reform that is very important to Māori. The Maori Trustee Act 1953 currently requires the Māori Trustee to pay interest rates set by regulation. At present these are set at 3, 4, and 5 percent, depending on the amount of money. The bill provides that the account holders will be paid the amount the Māori Trustee gets from the investment of money that is held in trust in the common fund, less a management fee where applicable. The Māori Trustee will also be required to report to the account holders on these payments. Some amendments were made at the select committee to better clarify the intention of these provisions. The term “distributable income” replaces the term “interest”, as this better describes the money to be paid to the account holders. The way in which the common fund money is routed through the Māori Trustee’s accounts will be simplified. The bill currently states that these particular changes must take place by 1 July 2009. Due to the passage of time, I will be proposing an amendment to allow the Māori Trustee 6 months to adjust the necessary systems.

The bill was also amended through the select committee process to repeal sections 19 and 21 of the principal Act. These sections provide that the Māori Trustee account can be operated on only by cheques or other instruments signed by the authorised officers. New powers of delegation in clause 7, and the proposed application of section 158 of the Crown Entities Act 2004, make these sections unnecessary. Section 41 of the Maori Trustee Act gives the Minister of Finance the power to require the Māori Trustee to pay back funds advanced for salaries and other expenses of the Māori Trust Office. Once the Māori Trustee’s historical debt to the Crown has been written off, this power will no longer be necessary. The bill has therefore been amended to repeal section 41 of the Maori Trustee Act 1953. A new section 29A further provides for continuity in tax-related matters.

As a stand-alone entity, the Māori Trustee will be well positioned to provide quality services to Māori. All employees of the Māori Trust Office will be transferred to a stand-alone entity on terms and conditions no less favourable than their existing terms and conditions. This will provide for continuity for clients as well as for staff. We recognise that there is an ongoing need for a Māori Trustee for the benefit of Māori. The changes proposed in this bill position the Māori Trustee to be able to fulfil that role for the future.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti) : E mihi kau ana ki te Minita Māori mō te take nei. E tika tonu ki te tautokotia atu ngā mihimihi i puta ā-waha i a koe, Hēkia, mō tō tātou kaiwhakahaere a Helen. E mōhio atu tātou e tautokotia atu te katoa o Māori. Nō reira, tēnā tātou.

[I acknowledge the Minister of Māori Affairs in respect of this matter. It is fitting indeed that I endorse the acknowledgments expressed by you, Hēkia, about our leader, Helen. We know that all Māori are in total support. So, greetings to us.]

I recognise the Minister of Māori Affairs for bringing the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill through to this stage. Hopefully, after further discussions, he might clip on the other part of the bill that has been cut off, because this was a whole package. I certainly want to recognise the Minister for doing that.

The Māori Affairs Committee stated in its report: “The bill as introduced addresses two distinct subjects. First, it would introduce changes to establish the Māori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation. … the bill sets up a new independent statutory corporation to further Māori economic development”—and I repeat, “Māori economic development”, which seems to be the buzz in the air at the moment—“by utilising the resources available to Māori. Having considered and heard submissions on the bill, [the committee] concluded that the first intention of the bill, to establish the Māori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation, has considerable merit and support. We believe, however, that the arrangements proposed for the statutory corporation to further Māori economic development are contentious and deserve further consideration.” I further quote the select committee: “The new bill, which would establish the Māori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation, has been renamed the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill. The new bill to set up the independent statutory corporation to further Māori economic development will continue to be known as the Māori Trustee and Māori Development Amendment Bill.”, and the committee has recommended changes to the bill.

This has been a long, drawn-out exercise. There have been reviews and more reviews in relation to the Māori Trustee, to those aspects that align with Te Ture Whenua Māori Act, and to the complications, I suppose, of both ownership tenure and intergenerational adjustments by new lots of Māori who may not have the old tikanga in relation to land tenure and what happens to it. There have been complications. Multiplicity has brought some of those about. There have been complications with legislation in the sense that sometimes only 75 percent has to be in agreement to do any development. That is why I again recommend to the Minister that he should consider the tail end of this bill, which should really be the front end, and the issue of a revolving fund to ensure that the enterprise generated off the land is aided and abetted.

We support the changes introduced to establish the Māori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation. The bill provides for robust accountability for public funding by including the Māori Trustee on the fourth schedule of the Public Finance Act. This will have the effect of applying appropriate reporting and other accountability provisions that were not there before. In respect of funding provided by the Crown, one of the things that was never really understood by the nation was that the Crown continually purchased certain aspects that the Māori Trustee managed on its behalf. That money was paid in, and it was supposed to be returned. It accumulated to a fine figure of nearly $63 million, and the previous Government had agreed to write that off in exchange for other developments. That is something that needs to be tidied up, and I was pleased to hear that the Minister will continue to tidy that up. There has been a long debate between successive Governments and the Māori Trustee about whether it is a true debt, a loan, or a fund of ours. I think that it needs to be tidied up. The fourth schedule of the Public Finance Act is quite interesting; other organisations have similar arrangements. The Māori Trustee will be given autonomy, but also be allowed to do those things it is struggling to do within confining legislation.

The bill provides that the Māori Trustee will be appointed by the Minister of Māori Affairs—and that is right, because it is the Minister’s responsibility—for a renewable term of up to 5 years. Further amendments will enable the new stand-alone Māori Trustee to employ his or her own staff. The previous Māori Trustee was part of the ministry of Te Puni Kōkiri. This bill splits the Māori Trustee apart from Te Puni Kōkiri, giving it its own entity and the opportunity to choose staff. On the staff matter, then, that should give the Māori Trustee the flexibility to get those skills and expertise we need, around a very large opportunity, in the sense of enterprise development on the land.

The bill also makes changes to the way in which interest on money held in trust in the common fund is determined. It has been the past practice that interest earned by the Māori Trustee was split and banked, and the minimum, which at times was between 3 and 4 percent, was returned to owners. This legislation will give more opportunity for owners to have a more participatory role, in the sense of the fund, so that it can help to trigger the capital needs they may have.

One of the real flaws, tensions, and strains—no different for Pākehā or Asian businesses—is the availability of capital. One thing we had been discussing, which was discussed at length at hui around the country, was the attempt to put together a revolving fund, accumulated up to about $200 million. That is real because it would have been Māori money, whether it came from the Poutama Māori Business Trust, the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, or the Māori Trustee. The Government was prepared to make a commitment of $40 million. I recognise, encourage, and understand what the Minister of Māori Affairs has now done with his commission, and so on, but I strongly recommend to the Minister that that revolving fund should be reconsidered. It has a whole lot of answers that we would struggle to go and find elsewhere, in the sense of chasing and buttering up to people to give Māori some money. We are talking about Māori money—real Māori money—in a revolving fund. I thought I would mention that, seeing that the bill is being split.

The common fund is where the difference has been—between banking the interest or using it. This bill now gives the Māori Trustee the flexibility to be more innovative and at least to have a template so that people can understand what they can go along and get support for. I see the Māori Trustee in the future as being one of the key conduits in relation to enterprise and development, because, again, those seem to be the buzzwords everywhere else. We should understand that a lot of Māori are already there, whether in kiwifruit, or beef and cattle. It is no mean feat that Māori are the biggest exporters of meat in this country—the single biggest. They are heading towards being the single biggest forest owners, and they have a huge say in the kiwifruit area.

The real question is whether the bill goes far enough. Māori were consulted on proposals to set up the Māori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation, as well as on the changes to reporting arrangements. During consultation with Māori on the proposals for a stand-alone trustee, a wider discussion emerged at hui in relation to the revolving fund. Māori are feeling the sharp edge of the recession, and I hear the Prime Minister and his Ministers continually saying that they want to engineer and engender an economy that is strong and that can be sustained in this country. This bill is one way to do that. By utilising the Māori Trustee and the assets there, Māori can really help themselves and ensure that their contribution to the economy is of their doing, is from their capital support, and is not from having to wait, cap in hand, for everybody else.

The operation of the accumulated debt to the Crown write-off is important. Section 41 of the Maori Trustee Act 1953 allows the Minister of Finance to recover amounts paid for the expenses of the Māori Trust Office—that is, before 1 July 2008, which is when the previous Government moved to have the debt written off. The money held in the common fund needs to be invested. I suggest that the fund is a great platform for Māori. Everybody else tries to use it—for example, major companies in this country, with the products that come from them. This is a major opportunity, and here is one of the rare examples we have of Māori having money in a fund.

I am certainly encouraged by the Minister of Māori Affairs’ continuation of this bill, in ensuring that it gets to a place where it is better off. I certainly want to recommend it. We will be supporting the bill.

Hon TAU HENARE (National) : I am reminded of Sir Winston Churchill’s speech: “Never before in the field of human conflict have so many been—”. What is it?

Hon Darren Hughes: “—have so many owed so much to so few.”

Hon Mita Ririnui: Was he Ngāpuhi?

Hon TAU HENARE: Actually, I think he was, but that is another matter. “—owed so much to so few.” Do members know who those so few are? They are the beneficiaries. They are the beneficiaries that the former Minister of Māori Affairs Parekura Horomia talks about and gets it wrong. He thinks—and the Labour members think—that the beneficiaries’ money is Māori money. It is not; it never has been and never should be.

Hon Darren Hughes: It’s Tory money.

Hon TAU HENARE: It has nothing to do with Tory money; it has everything to do with Māori money and beneficiary money. There are two differences. If it is Māori money then it belongs to everybody and it belongs to all those so-called urbans. But if it is beneficiary money then it belongs to those people it comes from. It is like me saying to a trust “Well, actually, because you sort of represent me I’ll have some of your dividends.” But the dividends of that company or trust belong to those beneficiaries; they do not belong to anybody else. The former Minister of Māori Affairs can get up on his feet and pontificate about this being a great time, but at the end of the day, at the close of play, and in the final analysis, what that side tried to do last year was to pilfer, purloin, steal—whatever members want to call it—$35 million of beneficiaries’ money. That is what they tried to do, and this side stopped them. This side, with the help of the Māori Party and the good leadership of Dr Pita Sharples, stopped them in their tracks.

What the former Minister failed to say in his speech when he said he consulted—he consulted iwi leaders and a few other people—was that he did not consult the beneficiaries. My question is whether, if Labour was truly interested in finding all of these people and getting those benefits out to the beneficiaries, then why it did not call in the Inland Revenue Department or Bay Collection Agency, or a place like that, which within 5 seconds can find anybody, apparently, who owes money. The Inland Revenue Department is able to find someone who owes it money. Why not use the apparatus of the State to try to find some beneficiaries for this fund? The former Minister said it was a long-drawn-out process. Well, of course it was a long-drawn-out process; Labour was in Government for 9 years. It is no wonder that it was a long-drawn-out process. But let us not quibble.

Hon Darren Hughes: What happened in your day?

Hon TAU HENARE: I had only 3 years and got most of my work done. There might even be some more work to do.

But this bill is not about me; this is about the poor beneficiary, who has been waiting for the odd $400 payout and for the odd $3,500 payout because he or she has had some land shares or value in land that has been held by the Māori Trustee, and the Māori Trustee—not him personally but the Māori Trustee Office—has not been able to find him or her for some reason. The bill introduces a whole new level of transparency and accountability, which will not go amiss in these days of hard times and the recession that is upon us. [Interruption] I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If Labour members want to go outside and have a conversation, they surely can, but standing up and having a conversation—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. Continue with your speech.

Hon Mita Ririnui: It’s not about you.

Hon TAU HENARE: You know, it is not about me; it is really about how useless that lot were for the last 9 years. But this is not about them either; this is about an opportunity, as the former Minister of Māori Affairs has said. He wants a revolving fund.

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

Hon TAU HENARE: As I was saying before I was rudely interrupted by the dinner break, it is interesting that the former Minister of Māori Affairs Parekura Horomia has said that this is a great opportunity to get $35 million to set up some sort of bank, some sort of revolving fund. But I ask what he was doing during the 9 years of the previous Government. If he had sequestered $5 million a year for those 9 years, he would be just short of $50 million. If he had sequestered from the Budget $10 million a year, he would be just short of $100 million. But what did he do in his last year of office—in the 9th year?

Nathan Guy: What?

Hon TAU HENARE: He tried to purloin $35 million of beneficiaries’ money. He rose in the House today and had the temerity to ask us not to forget the add-on. When the Māori Affairs Committee reported to the House last year, it recommended that the bill be split. The former Minister was told that, time and time again. Even in the first reading of the original Māori Trustee and Māori Development Amendment Bill, he was told that the provision we are discussing now was not a problem and should go through—that it was easy peasy lemon squeezy, or whatever the saying is. It was an administrative issue that could have been sorted out without too much problem.

In fact, the bill would have passed in the last Parliament, but the Minister was so entrenched. That led me to believe that the real reason behind Labour’s promotion of the original bill in the last Parliament was not the stand-alone, transparency, and accountability issues of the Māori Trustee, but to get its hands on the $35 million. There is no doubt in my mind. Now, when Labour members know that the Māori electorate and the electorate of New Zealand said they did not want them to come back on Monday, they still have the gall to ask us to take $35 million from Māori beneficiaries to use as a revolving fund. That was the first time, in 10 years, that I heard the former Minister talk about a revolving fund. Why did he move so late in the piece? It is because he had nothing to show for 9 years.

National is absolutely in favour of this bill—of having a stand-alone Māori Trustee. We support the independence—or move towards the independence—of the Māori Trustee, which will, hopefully, one day be appointed by the Minister of Māori Affairs or some other body that is more representative than just an offshoot of Te Puni Kōkiri. Who would not be in favour of that? I would be quite surprised if anybody in this House voted against the bill tonight. If it was coupled with that other rubbish, then we would not be supporting it.

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Labour) : Otirā, kia ora tātou. Wāhi tuatahi anō, e tika ana kia tautoko i ngā kōrero whakatau nei i runga i te wahine o te motu i tēnei hāora, ā, te hōnore a Helen Clark. Kua kōrerohia e te Pirimia tāna kōrero ki te whakanui i te tūranga kua whiwhi mai rā i tēnei wahine rangatira. Nō reira, tēnei nā ko te tū ake ki te tautoko ake.

[Greetings, indeed, to us. But, first and foremost, it is fitting that I endorse the congratulatory messages bestowed upon the lady of this hour and of the nation, the Rt Hon Helen Clark. In his congratulatory address the Prime Minister extolled the position that this great leader had secured. I rise to support it.]

Before referring to the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill, I join the Prime Minister and other speakers in the House today in congratulating the Rt Hon Helen Clark on her magnificent achievement in gaining the position she now holds. As was said on the 6 p.m. news tonight, it was good to see this House unanimous in its support for her in acknowledging her great achievement. Naturally, we all wish her well.

I refer to the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill before us this evening. This is the second reading of the bill. I am in some ways amused and bemused, in particular, by some of the comments made by the previous speaker, Tau Henare, whom I see has now left the House, which is fine.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member cannot comment that a member is not here.

Hon MITA RIRINUI: I apologise for that, Mr Deputy Speaker. No offence was intended.

I acknowledge the support of the Minister of Māori Affairs, Dr Pita Sharples, for this bill. In particular, I acknowledge the efforts and foresight of the previous Minister of Māori Affairs, the Hon Parekura Horomia, who basically listened very, very carefully to a number of leading Māori commentators who have been saying for a number of years that the Māori Trust Office needed to be a stand-alone organisation. In other words, it should not be an attachment to the Ministry of Māori Development, whose primary role is to provide policy advice to the Government, whichever Government it may be.

The role of the Māori Trustee is to administer multiple-owned Māori lands that have not been succeeded to, and over a number of years considerable pūtea, or returns, have accumulated. I have on many occasions heard Māori leaders say that this fund needs to be utilised. I am sure that during my years employed at Te Puni Kōkiri, the Ministry of Māori Development, the then chief executive, Harawira Gardiner, also expressed those views.

I am glad that this evening we are debating this particular matter. Part 1 sits comfortably with a number of people in this House. However, Part 2 has met with some considerable resistance. I can go back to the comments made by a former Minister of Māori Affairs, the Hon Tau Henare, who basically exaggerated a lot of the comments made at the Māori Affairs Committee. I am amused, or bemused, by the fact that he is opposed to Māori utilising this particular fund when it has been sitting there for a number of years, underutilised. It could be utilised in a positive way to promote Māori development, particularly in the area of business development. That is what is intended in the case of Part 2.

I recall that Mr Henare worked during the 6 years when he was out of this House—when he was on the bench, as we might say—for an organisation that was partly established by this fund. I am wondering why it was OK back then but that now, when we are looking to formalise the utilisation of the fund, it is not OK. In fact, he described this bill as stealing money from Māori landowners. This is their money; there is no dispute about that. What he overlooked is that many of those who would be able to utilise this fund are also the beneficiaries of the fund. Why Māori have not succeeded to their interest in Māori land is a question that will be around for a very, very long time. I remind that member that he needs to show some consistency. If it was all right for him to be employed by an organisation that utilised this fund for its establishment, then I ask why he is so against Māori across the board using the fund for economic development. It certainly eludes me.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: What was that organisation?

Hon MITA RIRINUI: I do not want to name the organisation, because it is a very, very credible and honourable organisation—may it reign for a very long time.

I also acknowledge that since the change in Government there has also been a change in the membership of the Māori Affairs Committee. That committee had a very, very difficult task, given the opposition of the National members on the committee. The National members had their own reasons, and we have no issue with that, but, as I said, there needs to be consistency.

There certainly needs to be an acknowledgment of the efforts of the officials from Te Puni Kōkiri and, in particular, of members of the Māori Affairs Committee. Dave Hereora is no longer in Parliament, but he managed to facilitate and chair a very, very difficult committee through a difficult time.

Nathan Guy: What’s he doing now? What’s he up to?

Hon MITA RIRINUI: I tell the member to keep quiet, as he might learn something. I also acknowledge the Hon Mahara Okeroa, who is no longer in this House. He provided some very, very sound advice to the Māori Affairs Committee. The New Zealand First member, Pita Paraone, also had a lifetime of experience in Māori development with the Ministry of Māori Development and the Māori Trust Office. Those people brought valuable information, knowledge, and skills to the table when we were discussing the merits of this bill. Those people could tell the members stories of a number of organisations that have, in the past, accessed this fund.

I am concerned that when people in some organisations are out in the community working they have a particular point of view, as they should, but when they come into this House and take over the Treasury benches their view is completely different. In fact, what is good for them is not good for everybody else. That is the whole issue here. The fact that this accumulated fund with the Māori Trust Office has never been properly utilised to facilitate Māori economic development is a tragedy.

As the previous Minister of Māori Affairs, the Hon Parekura Horomia, highlighted in his speech in the House this afternoon, a lot of work has gone into the development of this amendment bill. A lot of discussion has also taken place, not just in the last few months of 2008 but over a number of years. I personally take offence when the Hon Tau Henare says that the previous Minister of Māori Affairs did nothing prior to the 2008 election. That is not true, and if that member had not been out of here and on the bench the past 6 years, then he would know that for a fact. I am sure that other Māori members in this House, of whichever persuasion, are aware of that, as well.

The previous Minister of Māori Affairs made it very clear when he became the Minister of Māori Affairs that his intention was to find innovative ways to assist Māori economic development. This bill is one of the ways in which—with the assistance of his Cabinet colleagues and, particularly, the previous Prime Minister and the previous Minister of Finance—he was able to do that. The previous Government was going to make a considerable contribution to this particular fund, not only to assist in the development of Māori economic development but also to accelerate it. Now that opportunity may be lost.

By the way, when the former Minister of Māori Affairs became the Minister, he enjoyed an appropriation in excess of $300 million annually for Māori development, but when he left office it was below $57 million annually. I would like to ask the member, who is not in the House, how that happened. I think it was because, as members have heard in the House this evening, he has a do-nothing attitude—of not making the hard decisions, because he may have to live with them. Well, what is wrong with that? That is why the member is here. He should learn to suck it up and get on with the job. That is what people expect from him.

This bill is very similar to other pieces of legislation that have come before the Māori Affairs Committee, and those are too numerous to name. But I find that the attitude from some members has been the same—do nothing, because it is too tough to make the right decision. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) : Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tātou e te Whare. I am happy to stand today in support of the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill for a number of very good reasons. First, the bill deals with issues that have been the subject of successive reviews and considerable debate. Second, it tidies up matters that have been contentious and controversial for many Māori for a very long time. Third, the bill brings the longstanding review of the Māori Trustee to a conclusion. Fourth, it helps set a more positive path forward for the Māori Trustee and the many Māori who have interests administered by the trustee. Fifth, by supporting the bill I get to support the Hon Dr Pita Sharples, co-leader of the mighty Māori Party. He is the very first Minister of Māori Affairs in the 155-year history of the House to present a bill as a member of an independent Māori party, and as a member of the independent Māori Party itself—the parliamentary wing of Te Ao Māori.

The Māori Trustee has touched the lives of large numbers of Māori and their whānau since it was first established back in 1920, when it was known as the Native Trustee. It has had a chequered and not always popular history over the years, including its involvement in the passing of the Maori Trustee Act in 1953, decades of massive social and economic upheaval for Māori, and the many policy changes affecting Māori land, such as the 1993 Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, with its recognition of the importance of land to Māori.

The Māori Trustee has been publicly slated, as well, like when it was roundly criticised in the Ngāi Tahu report of 1991 for its successive failure, as the Crown’s appointed trustee, to administer reserved land properly. This included the failure of the trustee to consult with owners, failure to act as a prudent trustee, failure to take action to amalgamate land titles and develop lands, and failure to prevent land from being taken for public works. There was also the submission from Ngā Ruahine that stated that right from when the Māori Trustee was established it did no favours for Māori people and actually lost large tracts of Māori land through trustee mismanagement. So this bill has been a long time coming.

One feature of this bill is that it sets up the Māori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation—a proposal that had been widely supported by those making submissions and those involved in the consultation hui held throughout the country in 2007 under the previous Minister of Māori Affairs. The bill also addresses one of the key concerns repeated through many of the submissions, which is for the Māori Trustee to become more independent of the Crown, because although the Māori Trustee is controlled by Government departments, there can be very little accountability to Māori. In fact, 20 years ago, people recommended that many of the functions of the Māori Trustee be devolved from the Department of Māori Affairs to hapū and iwi. Others have also argued that if the Māori Trustee were to continue, then independent appointment and monitoring of it would be critical to the credibility of the office.

Currently, the job of Māori Trustee is given to a public servant employed by Te Puni Kōkiri. I acknowledge the role that my whanaunga John Paki played in steering the waka forward to this point. As everyone in this House knows, there was some pretty dynamic debate about this issue all around the country and at the select committee, with some submissions calling for beneficial owners to have a say in the appointment of the Māori Trustee. So it is great to know that under the new arrangement, with the trustee being appointed directly by the Minister of Māori Affairs, the Minister has already signalled a commitment to consult with beneficial owners about the appointment procedure, and to ensure that their voices are included as part of the whole process. I give big ups to the Minister for being willing to front, to listen, and to be accountable to the very people who give the Māori Trustee its power.

It is good to hear the Minister give a commitment to working with the owners of Māori land under the guardianship of the Māori Trustee and to revitalising the Māori Trustee’s ability to provide good service to its beneficial owners, given that the Māori Trustee looks after the interests of many owners who are not known, cannot be found, have not succeeded to their land interests, may not even be aware that they can succeed, or may not know how to. It is also good to know that the Minister will be focusing energy on finding many of those owners to ensure that they are able to re-establish their links to their land and to receive the benefits to which they are entitled.

That brings me to another important aspect of this bill, which is the change to the way the returns on money held by the Māori Trustee are paid to the beneficial owners so that instead of being specified by regulation, owners will get returns paid on a pro rata basis of that received by the trustee. That is another plus for beneficial owners.

As a bonus, it is really great to note that the historical debt to the Crown for servicing the Māori Trust Office will also be written off. So a massive debt has also been wiped through this new bill. That is another plus for the beneficial owners whose returns will not now be diminished by major debt-servicing.

Finally, I note the new reporting arrangements for the Crown funding, which will ensure transparency and accountability for the funding and services provided. That is another plus for beneficial owners, who will now have a clearer idea of the future costs involved in the running of the trustee’s office.

This is a big bill, it is an important bill, and it is a bill for Māori. If managed well, it will also benefit all New Zealanders by providing more certainty to the operations of a major Māori financial support institution in times when uncertainty and insecurity are dominating influences in our world. Sure, there will always be areas that can be improved, and over time we hope to improve them with the support of all Māori in this House, but this bill will provide certainty to the office and positive benefits to the beneficial owners. Importantly, the bill will go down in history as the first bill ever presented to a New Zealand Parliament by a Minister of Māori Affairs representing an independent Māori voice in Parliament and an independent Māori party in the nation’s House of Representatives. For that we can all be grateful, and we can look ahead to bigger and better things. For all those reasons, the Māori Party will support this bill. Tēnā tātou katoa.

HEKIA PARATA (National) : Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā, otirā, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Greetings to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and indeed to all of us.]

I rise to speak in support of the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill in its second reading. I think it might be helpful to provide a little bit of historical context to the Māori Trustee and the Māori Trust Office so that we might better consider the particular provisions of the bill before us. I can do no better than to remind members of that snippet of historical context that was provided in the first reading by my colleague, now the Attorney-General, the Hon Christopher Finlayson.

In 1882 the Native Reserves Act was passed. It provided for the vesting of Crown administered Māori reserves in the Public Trustee. The Public Trustee was the first trustee of these lands. That trustee later had added to the office two Māori trustees, but the reading of history suggests that that was a very unsatisfactory arrangement because the board failed to meet regularly and did not provide an opportunity for its Māori members to represent Māori interests.

In the early 20th century the majority of the accounts vested in the Public Trustee came under four principal Acts: the Native Reserves Act of 1882, the Westland and Nelson Native Reserves Act of 1887, the West Coast Settlement Reserves Act of 1892, and section 185 of the Native Land Act of 1909. However, because of the concerns on the part of Māori owners at the administration of their reserves by the Public Trustee, the whole issue was reviewed—as is the way of many Māori enterprises—in 1913. There was a commission of inquiry into the Public Trust Office and it was latterly recommended that an independent body should be established. That is how the first Māori Trustee was born in 1920 after the First World War.

In 1932 an amendment Act saw the amalgamation of the office with the department itself, and under the 1932 Act the position of trustee was combined with the position of under-secretary of the department. That history directly leads us to the consideration of the bill before us today. This is the second reading of this bill; the first reading occurred under the previous administration.

Hon Shane Jones: A brilliant administration it was.

HEKIA PARATA: Previous speakers tell us that it was not as brilliant as the member opposite is suggesting.

In fact, there were two parts to the bill, the second part directly proving the necessity for the first part. The first part suggests that the Māori Trust Office should be stand-alone so that it may be untrammelled in its focus on protecting the beneficial owners and their interests. In the first reading of the bill there was provision for the establishment of a new entity that would basically become a capital fund for lending, and moneys from the Māori Trustee were going to be used to capitalise that fund. Thus a decision was being made—yet again on behalf of the beneficial owners, without their full consultation or understanding—that there was a better way of using their moneys and their interests. One would venture to suggest that it was one of the last vestiges of the paternalistic bureaucracy that Māori have suffered under for many, many long years.

I stand to heartily endorse this second reading now that the two parts have been separated. I just say that the former Minister talked about the desirability of maintaining the second part of the bill, and I completely understand that the intent of that part of the bill was honourable and that it was intended to be of assistance to Māori. However, I continue to believe that it would have been a misappropriation of the beneficial owners’ moneys and their interests. So now that this Minister is proposing that the second part be taken out of the bill and that the stand-alone provisions for the Māori Trustee be the focus of our attention instead, I am delighted to support it.

Hon Judith Collins: Very good.

HEKIA PARATA: Thank you. I now turn to an overview of the bill. Following the deliberations of the Māori Affairs Committee a number of amendments have been made, principal amongst which is the one that I have already referred to—the Māori Trust Office being a stand-alone entity. The second is that the appointment of the Māori Trustee should occur—

Hon Shane Jones: Who will he be accountable to?

HEKIA PARATA: Well, I say to Mr Jones that it may not be a he. The person appointed will be a person capable of carrying out the role, independent of their gender, and the Minister must observe the rules of natural justice in exercising that power.

The term “interest” is to be replaced with the term “distributable income”, which is a far more accurate description of how moneys are to be paid to account holders. The bill instructs that income from the investment of money in the common fund form part of the common fund rather than being transferred to the existing general purpose fund and distributed from that account. The Māori Trust fund is as complex as most trust funds are, and so the opportunity to clarify and simplify as much of that complexity as possible is a highly desirable outcome.

The bill allows for the accumulated debt of the Māori Trustee to be written off, and so it should, because the accumulated debt has occurred as a result of the Māori Trustee trying to observe the many restrictions and constraints upon the actions of that office that have been largely—if not exclusively—imposed by the Crown. The bill requires that the Māori Trustee conduct a quarterly comparison of the distributable income and fair market value of similar distributions with similar funds. Again, this allows the beneficial owners to achieve the priority and the considerations of the Māori Trustee, which they should always have enjoyed, by ensuring that there is an explicit benchmark by which comparisons can be made as to the funds that beneficial owners should be receiving.

I take a moment to remind members that the appropriate vocabulary when discussing the people who have interests in these is “beneficial owners”. I trust members have noticed that I have been labouring on this term. There has been use of the term “beneficiaries”, which is quite a different category of people—no less, no more—but the point is that the trust provides for people who have a property right, an ownership interest, and the opportunity to receive distributable income from that.

Hon Shane Jones: Oh, they don’t even know it’s there.

HEKIA PARATA: I say to Mr Jones that that is precisely why we have a trustee whose responsibility it is to ensure that whether or not a beneficial owner knows he or she has a property right, it is incumbent upon that office-holder to make every attempt to ensure that the beneficial owner is made aware of the potential for receiving some interest off that ownership right.

The bill goes on to introduce a requirement for disclosure by the Māori Trustee to account holders of the amount of distributable income payable, the management fee charged or retained by the trustee, the net amount of distributable income to be paid, and other matters that the Māori Trustee considers necessary or desirable.

Quickly coming to my peroration, I say that generally the bill introduces a level of accountability for the office of the Māori Trustee that has not been previously required. The bill allows for the Māori Trustee to be free from political pressure by establishing it as a stand-alone organisation. It provides for better, more open communication between the Māori Trustee and its beneficial owners.

The provisions of the bill mean that the beneficiaries of the Māori Trustee can be sure they are receiving equitable income from the common fund. Our support for the bill shows our commitment to property rights, to the recognition thereof, to the fair market rate at which those interests should be recognised, to removing complicated bureaucracy, and to ensuring that Māori have the opportunity to be independent in respect of their own property. It also shows that in the current financial climate it is important that all public entities be seen as transparent and accountable.

Moreover, it demonstrates the commitment in the National-led Government to our coalition with our partners, the Māori Party, together with whom we are committed to ensuring that there are fair and equitable outcomes for Māori, and that the legislation we pass in this House has the opportunity to realise some of the values that our Prime Minister has talked about, such as putting real discipline around Government spending.

Finally, I point out that the trustee’s assets are collectively owned by, and for the benefit of, the trust’s beneficial owners. Those assets are not owned by anyone else but them, and therefore they deserve to have the best machinery possible to defend them.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) : Mr Deputy Speaker, tēnei au e tū ana ki te tāpiri atu āku nei whakaaro ki ērā kua mihia ki tō tātou nei rangatira wahine, ki a Helen me te tūranga i whiwhi i a ia. He hōnore tēnei mō tātou katoa. Nō reira, ka nui te mihi atu ki a ia.

[Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to add my thoughts to those expressed to this great stateswoman of ours, Helen, and the role she has gained. This indeed is an honour for all of us, so I acknowledge her greatly.]

I will add to the many remarks made by colleagues in this House to acknowledge the role that has been gained by the Rt Hon Helen Clark. She will do a fine job for New Zealanders, and we should be proud of her. I certainly endorse the many comments made in this House.

I rise to speak to the second reading of the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill, and I support the intent with which it was introduced by the previous Minister of Māori Affairs, the Hon Parekura Horomia. Although statements have been made in regard to the full intent of the bill, I will come back to that point later, because there are some salient aspects of the intent with which he wanted to ensure that the Māori Trustee, existing as a stand-alone entity, could also contribute to opportunities in Māori economic development.

I have spent some time listening carefully to the debate in the House and I have to say that the comments made by a former Minister of Māori Affairs, the Hon Tau Henare, who got one shot at it—

Hon Shane Jones: Who?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: The Hon Tau Henare, who, in his time as Minister, did not attempt to do anything in this space. So I found it a little rich to hear his iterations in the House that, really, for a whole 5 minutes, had nothing to do with the bill and everything to do with anything else except the bill. But therein probably lies his future. He will only ever get one shot at being the Minister of Māori Affairs, and he will always only ever be a backbencher in his own Government.

The point Tau Henare raised was, essentially, that we should not be spending the money of unidentified beneficiaries—in fact, he says we should do nothing at all. I find it incredible to believe that he, as a former Minister, would promote a tread-water type of scenario. But when we look at his term in office, we should be under no illusion: a do-nothing approach from that member is what one could expect.

More important, Tau Henare talked about all these unidentified beneficiaries. Members in Māori electorates will know that when they get the book of unclaimed moneys from the Māori Trust Office every year, it is a very difficult task to go through it and identify in their rohe who might be eligible to receive something. I have done this many times and it is actually a very hard task. If it is hard for a member in a Māori electorate to find those people, then it damn sure is hard for the Māori Trustee.

Even though we know that is the case, no members of the current Government have asked what more they could do, or said how they would help the Māori Trustee to improve this demand that we must try to find those unidentified beneficiaries. No one in the House actually offered a solution, and as members of the Government they have the capacity to try to strengthen any opportunity the Māori Trustee has to identify those beneficial owners for all the moneys those members claim can never be used—money that just sits and waits in abeyance as part of a do-nothing approach.

I have to go back to the earlier comments of the Hon Parekura Horomia. I believe that, yes, his intent was honourable. Every day in our tribal authorities we allow our organisations to exercise responsibility for those tribal members, whether or not they are identified, to make collective investments for our beneficial interest and opportunity going forward. Yet we deny that opportunity to the Māori Trustee, and all he was asking is why have funds sitting there doing nothing when they could contribute to the collective economic development of Māori as a whole—not any one particular group of Māori, but Māori as a whole. What we know when we talk about economic development, when we walk down that path, is that if we are making a good, strong contribution in that area, then what is good for Māori is good for everybody. That is all it was. There was nothing sinister about it.

I need to acknowledge the contribution of former members of the Māori Affairs Committee to the debate. It was vociferous. We received a lot of feedback.

When one goes back to a community and asks the people whether they would rather that somebody’s unclaimed $5.24 sits in a fund and does nothing, or that we try to do something to build the opportunity for all of us, the answer is easy. People will put that $5.24 into a bigger pūtea to try to do something good for all of us. It is a no-brainer.

Tribal organisations face that question every day when they look at how to better utilise their Treaty settlements. They could ask every tribal member whether they could aggregate the amount of the settlement to every tribal member. We did that back in 1995 in Waikato-Tainui when we got our settlement and tribal members were to get about $9.56 each. We tried to convince them that rather than take out their $9.56 each, we should put it into the collective pool, and do something for all of us.

It is the same question that the Māori Trust Office should face and must answer. That really is the challenge, because when we look at a lot of the issues around the way in which the Māori Trust Office operates and at how it invests this funding, we can only hope and expect that it will be accountable for the investments it makes, that it will make a valuable contribution to Māori economic development, and that it will be accountable to, obviously, those whom it can identify as beneficial owners, but, more important, that we free up some of the constraints around its role to be able to accelerate and support Māori economic development.

The difficulty with multiple-owned Māori land—and I am not saying anything new to those Māori members in the House who know the constraints—is that it is often very difficult to identify every owner who has a stake in a bit of land, to try to get hold of them, and to then agree to a decision on what is happening on that bit of land. That is why so many parcels of land around the country cannot have anything done on them, because it is such a hard task to try to get everyone to agree to make something happen. Every Māori member in this House knows that this is the reality. It is the same reality that the office of the Māori Trustee faces when it tries to do things, so let us not bring to this House a high moral principled approach that because we cannot do this, we should not do anything. Let us free up the underutilised capacity of a whole lot of pockets of Māori land that could better contribute to economic development in this country.

I am pleased that Pita Sharples, as the Minister of Māori Affairs, has taken up the task of continuing the work started by our Government in terms of the rating and valuation of Māori land. That is a valuable piece of work that the National-led Government should look to when it continues to arrest the failure of the underutilisation of Māori land in our country. I hope the Government will support that work to free up the opportunities on unutilised Māori land so that it can better contribute to the economic opportunities in our communities and regions.

This is a second reading of the bill. Many of the changes have been referred to. Once again I commend the previous Minister of Māori Affairs, the Hon Parekura Horomia, and the current Minister of Māori Affairs for seeing fit to introduce the bill and then bring it forward for its second reading. I hope that in the third reading debate there may be some opportunity for the Government and the Māori Party to demonstrate what their contribution will be to accelerate Māori development. Members on this side of the House know that the previous Labour Government had solutions. We are just waiting to hear solutions from them. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

PAUL QUINN (National) : It is my pleasure to be able to take a call on this very important legislation, the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill.

I start by making a couple of comments about what I have heard in the debate. We are a very responsible Government but a number of times Opposition members have criticised us for not providing the opportunity to thoroughly debate bills as they pass through the House. I have been sitting here for some time and so far have heard only two members of the Opposition rise to speak; they were supposedly speaking to this bill, yet neither of them actually spoke to it. I sat patiently and listened with great intent and interest, hoping to hear some pearls of wisdom from my second cousin Mita Ririnui, because, of course, one looks up to the elders to be inspired by their learned knowledge. All one can say in summary about what he had to pass on was that it was a whole lot of valedictions to members who have departed from this House—most of them booted out at the last election. I am not sure why he went through the process of mentioning them all and, I guess, embarrassing them by drawing the House’s attention to the fact they are no longer here. I am not quite sure, but I guess he had his reasons. So I did not learn anything about the bill from him. We have just had a contribution from Ms Nanaia Mahuta, and again, sadly, Ms Mahuta spent most of her time slagging off the National Party about its non-contribution, if you will, to Māori development and singing the praises, in a wayward fashion, of the previous Minister of Māori Affairs.

Having been on the edges of the bill’s formation—if I can put it that way—one of the things that struck me is that it was introduced into the House in November 2007. I note also that an enormous amount of work was done prior to its introduction, with lots of to-ing and fro-ing as to what would be in the bill in respect of getting it before the House. The simple fact is that although the name of the previous Minister, the Hon Parekura Horomia, is attached to the bill, I suggest that it is there in name only.

I say that because in the first reading debate the bill was fundamentally in two parts. One aspect dealt with the separation of the Māori Trustee from Te Puni Kōkiri and making it a stand-alone organisation. The other aspect was about rolling that organisation into some sort of Māori incorporation. At that time the National Party opposed the bill, simply because of the second limb of the proposal. The Māori Affairs Committee considered this bill and deliberated on it, and it is pleasing to note that the intellectual grunt provided by the National Party members and Māori Party members on the committee at that time—now members of the current Government—clearly drove the restructuring of this bill.

The bill before us now in its second reading is actually what the National Party wanted. That is, the concept of a Māori incorporation—if I can phrase it in such a way; sort of a money-laundering thing—has been removed. It was the sort of thing that Shane Jones was probably keen to get his hands on, simply because he is the master of double-dipping. In that respect I can enlighten the House that in 2006-07 he was double-dipping to the extent of an annualised figure in excess of $100,000 in his role at Te Ohu Kaimoana. When he talks to me about double-dipping—for volunteer work, in fact—I remind him of the large fees that he was earning not only at that commission but also from the taxpayer. He was taking from Māori people and the taxpayer to continue the lifestyle that he chose. I notice that he did not have his way because we removed the Māori incorporation—

Hon Steve Chadwick: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the member should be reminded to stick to the point of this bill and leave the testosterone alone.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for those comments.

Nathan Guy: The member raising the point of order has been a member for a long time, and she will realise that a first, second, or third reading is a wide-ranging debate. My colleague, like the rest of the House, is engaging in this robust debate under the Standing Orders.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for those comments. I will ask the member, however—

Hon Shane Jones: Mr Speaker—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is this a new point of order?

Hon Shane Jones: Yes, it is. I would like to point out the key difference between that member and myself: I was good at my job.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. I ask the honourable member Paul Quinn to continue and to confine his comments to the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill.

PAUL QUINN: I think the Hansard will demonstrate that I was talking about the separation of this bill at the moment the junior Labour whip stood to take the point of order. To say that I was not addressing this bill is not correct. Perhaps the member should have her hearing checked.

I will get back to the point that was so rudely interrupted. The second limb of the proposal, which I was talking about before I was interrupted, has now been removed thanks to the leadership shown by the National Party and the Māori Party, which are now the Government, in taking responsibility for this bill. We are dealing now with only the reorganisation and the stand-alone nature of the Māori Trustee.

I turn more specifically now to some of the detail in this bill. As I just said, it establishes the Māori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation. The second intention of the original bill was to propose arrangements for a statutory corporation, which, of course, we have now removed. So the two limbs that we are now talking about are, first, a stand-alone organisation, and, more important, transparency—proper reporting back by those who must do so. The bill allows the Māori Trustee to be free from political pressure, which, of course, was a concern given the way the previous Government used to appoint all its cronies—like Dianne Yates—to various boards, as it tried to silently move those members on. Judith Tizard might have turned up on a board somewhere—who knows? The bill provides for better, more open communication between the Māori Trustee and the beneficial owners.

It is, indeed, with some pleasure that I stand and support the Minister of Māori Affairs, who is now responsible for driving this bill through the House, and who is showing outstanding leadership in that role—one that we are all very proud of as a Government. It gives me great pleasure to be able to join with my colleagues who spoke previously in giving my full and unequivocal support to this bill. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) : Ā, te mea tuatahi māku he tāpiri i ōku mihi ki tō tātou nei whaea rangatira ngā mihi kua ūhia ki runga i ōna pokohiwi i te ahiahi nei. First of all, I would like to acknowledge and support the words that were heaped upon our previous Prime Minister, Helen Clark, on her gaining her new job with the United Nations.

I am not a member of the Labour Opposition who gets annoyed with Mr Quinn’s speeches. In fact, I quite enjoy them, and I can see a number of months ahead of us where—late into the night—we will need the likes of Mr Quinn speaking just to keep us awake. But I want to correct a terrible injustice that occurred earlier this evening—we were not speaking about the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill, which I will get to shortly—when Mr Quinn drew an analogy between the Labour Party and a rugby team. A terrible injustice occurred to our good colleague the Hon Parekura Horomia when a terrible stereotype was perpetuated by referring to him as a prop. Parekura’s feelings were terribly hurt and he signalled to me that he will not play for the parliamentary rugby team unless he gets to play on the wing. He was prepared to have a sprint-off against Mr Quinn, and to give him a 10-yard handicap.

Coming back to the bill, I refer the Hon Tau Henare’s comments earlier this evening when he wondered why the Labour Government had not found the beneficiaries and distributed the money owing to them. He said that it would take 5 seconds for a debt collection agency to locate these people. Based on that estimate I have figured that it would take 54 days—24-hour days I would have to say—to locate those 188,000 owners of this money. Because the Labour Party would not expect people to work a 24-hour day, it would mean 164 40-hour days! That means that in less than 6 months National will be able to find the beneficiaries and return all this money to them. To some extent, this bill is actually a waste of time because in 6 months’ time the National Government will have distributed all this money, so there is not much point in continuing the debate. However, we know that is silly logic. It is difficult to find the 188,000 beneficiaries of all this money.

One of the big problems is multiplicity: the number of Māori owners owning a bit of land or whatever. I would like to use my own family as an example. My father has 94 first cousins—we are pretty prolific breeders. Each of those 94 cousins has, on average, five kids, so if we roughly multiply 94 by five there are 500 of my generation. If those 500 have five kids of their own there is another 2,500. Members can now understand how quickly there are a number of multiple owners and multiple beneficiaries in Māori whānau.

I support, in particular, the purpose of the bill. The bill, as introduced, was intended to make changes arising out of a review of the Māori Trustee and Māori Trust Office to bring together functions supporting Māori businesses undertaken by Te Puni Kōkiri, the Māori Trustee, and perhaps other organisations. The bill also provides for robust accountability for public funding by including the Māori Trustee on the fourth schedule of the Public Finance Act. I have nothing against accountability; we have to be accountable. But the part of the bill where I think we are really missing an opportunity was in splitting it. Where it is difficult to distribute those funds to the beneficiaries, we do not make use of those funds. It is really important that those funds be used to invest in Māori enterprise, Māori business, and, of course, Māori employment. When those funds are used, and Māori businesses become successful, it would not take much thinking outside the square to create a facility within this bill for those people to return a dividend to the fund.

I would like to describe a project that my whanaunga in Ngāti Hine, up north, have participated in. The project has taken a lot of initiative, and it has taken a lot of effort, money, and resourcing to get off the ground. It would have been really good if some of this type of funding was used to support this Māori initiative to get off the ground. It is the taunahanaha project, undertaken by our whanaunga in Mōtatau, which is very hilly country, whereby they have developed a plan of the land using mapping where they can identify particular areas of the farms that suit particular crops or particular yields. So, instead of planting potatoes they should be planting corn on particular blocks of land, or raising sheep instead of planting pine trees. For that sort of initiative there is a lot of investment, there is a lot of development, and it has taken a lot of time. It would be really good if we could use the funds from the Māori Trustee to support that sort of Māori development.

I also got a call from a mate of mine who runs an oyster farm in Te Hāpua. He is upset that the Northland Regional Council expect oyster farmers to pay a bond of $22,000 per hectare in case the farmers walk off their oyster farms for whatever reason. The oyster farms up north are very successful enterprises. However, with a $22,000 bond per hectare—and my mate has a 13-hectare oyster farm—it will cost him $286,000 just to pay for the bond. This is an instance where the Māori Trustee funds could be used to support Māori enterprise to pay this bill. When that enterprise is highly successful, then it would be really cool if we had a facility in this bill where it could pay part of that back.

Another cousin of mine set up a Māori enterprise in Moerewa called the Tuna Café, where different types of Māori food are for sale. For example, instead of having egg bolognese and things like that—

Hon Steve Chadwick: Egg whatever.

KELVIN DAVIS: Whatever it is. They have tuna and kūmara and those sorts of Māori-based recipes. It was not bolognese—I apologise for that one. But they have formulated a menu that is based around—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the member. There is a lot of chit-chat going. I am having difficulty hearing the member. If members want to converse, please go to the lobbies. I am sorry to interrupt the member.

KELVIN DAVIS: To conclude, I think there is money from the Māori Trustee that could be used to support Māori initiatives. We are in a recession, and this is a great time to invest money from the Māori Trustee in order to create jobs, to create employment, to support Māori businesses, and to help us just get on with life. It does not take much thinking outside of the square to use this bill in a positive way so that Māori are able to be highly successful participants in our society.

I finish by saying that I support the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill, and I would like to think that the second part that was cut off the bottom of the original bill will be included. Kia ora.

AARON GILMORE (National) : I rise to support the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill. As previously mentioned by many speakers tonight, this is a largely uncontroversial bill. It was introduced in the previous Parliament, before my time. The key change to this bill from the Māori Affairs Committee is the removal of what the previous speaker, Kelvin Davis, was talking about—the splitting-off of anything to do with the $35 million of trust moneys into what, essentially, could have become a Labour Party Māori development slush fund.

Paul Quinn: They’re thieves.

AARON GILMORE: Yes. The bill separates the Māori Trustee as a formal, separate body from Te Puni Kōkiri, and it provides associated governance administration methods for this to occur. I must admit to recently not knowing much about what the Māori Trustee does or its role. Upon further investigation, I was surprised and I now consider the separation in a legal sense from Te Puni Kōkiri to be a step in the right direction for the Māori Trustee and for Māoridom.

The role of the Māori Trustee is broad. It can be seen as basically a body that bridges the gap between the Māori people and communities, and the rights and assets that the Māori Trustee holds on their behalf. Over 111,000 hectares of land is controlled by the Māori Trustee, and there are over 186,000 owners, who have land across 2,000 properties. That is about 50 hectares per owner, per property. That makes the Māori Trustee effectively one of the largest landowners and land managers in New Zealand, with land covering an area about the size of Banks Peninsula—where my family is from—but spread over the entire country.

The land is, on average, mostly unproductive rural land. For that reason the Māori Trustee acts to obtain the economies of scale from a single office across large numbers of owners. The Māori Trustee also manages a number of scholarships, and that is something that has not been mentioned much tonight and that I wish I had known about when I went to university. In particular, the prestigious Sir Apirana Ngata Memorial Scholarship honours one of our truly greatest New Zealanders. If the work of the Māori Trustee can inspire more young New Zealanders, through that scholarship, to strive to achieve what he did, then I think that, as a nation, we would be better for it. The Māori Trustee being separate from Te Puni Kōkiri should allow that to happen more, and it will not be cluttered up with the other issues that Te Puni Kōkiri has to deal with, such as similar Government agency scholarships.

One of the more interesting issues I found over the past day in research on the Māori Trustee was that in Te Wai Pounamu there are over 300 people who have money owing to them, including $67,000 in one instance to one individual. Many thousands of others are owed money, down to $200 or $300 in some instances. I was shocked by this, and I recommend that every member of this House review that list to find family or friends who may have money owing to them. For myself, I found one cousin who is owed some money and I intend to ring him tomorrow to make sure he follows up on it.

It is interesting that we annually see ads from the Inland Revenue Department. We see “Get your tax refund now!” advertised in local shopping malls, on TV, and in newspaper ads, but we do not see any similar type of thing for the Māori Trustee. Maybe this bill will allow the Māori Trustee to have more flexibility and freedom to make such innovations in order to get more funding to people who deserve it. Perhaps more creatively, it will allow the Māori Trustee to think, and to get out from under the skirts of Te Puni Kōkiri so that many more people, and Māori in particular, who are entitled to this money, and who are generally poor, can efficiently and effectively get access to the money that they need.

It is interesting that, following the consultation on the Māori Trustee that was undertaken up and down the country, many iwi wanted this Māori Trustee to be more independent of Te Puni Kōkiri—for many reasons that Hone Harawira and others spoke about tonight. There is a distinct benefit in having more independent governance for the Māori Trustee, especially in reporting and controls so that people can see where the money goes, how it is spent, and what it is used for in terms of administration. The bill appoints the Māori Trustee for an initial period of 5 years, and allows the Minister of Māori Affairs to appoint a person to act as effectively the chief executive officer of the Māori Trustee. The bill also undertakes the associated tidy-up of a large number of administrative issues to enable the Māori Trustee to effectively and efficiently undertake its role on behalf of Māori. The bill also enables the Māori Trustee to have surety of income by making it clear how the Māori Trustee can get its costs recovered and what will eventually go through to those people who are beneficiaries.

The other important aspect that has only been touched on by one speaker tonight is the removal of the debt that exists with the Māori Trustee. About $52 million dollars of debt exists, and that is a massive debt. This allows the Māori Trustee to instead focus on value creation for the benefit of Māori, rather than on the issues that exist around trying to resolve that debt issue.

For those reasons, I commend this bill to the House and I look forward to seeing the results of the Māori Trustee improve. Then people will be more comfortable with the role and results of the Māori Trustee, and they can get the money that they deserve in an increasingly effective and efficient fashion. The Māori Trustee can deliver what it was set up to do in education, in land management, and in terms of getting money to those people who deserve it and are in need. Thank you.

• Bill read a second time.