Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to speak on the Māori Purposes Bill. As our colleague and friend Jo Luxton has recorded it's nice when parties are able to be in agreement on a matter. It does make for a more pleasant experience here not that we should shy away from that other kind of debate that we do have from time to time. On that note I made myself as familiar with this as possible by reading the report of the Māori Affairs Committee as opposed to having participated in it myself and it seems that there was a good collegial atmosphere at that august body and it typically operates in that way I understand. It is famous for seeking a consensus-based model of discussion and debate and resolution and it seems that their consideration and ultimately their deliberation on this bill has been no different. So that's a positive thing in itself.The name of the bill I think is interesting—the Māori Purposes Bill. To some extent there's a high-level desire to act in a way that meets the purposes as opposed to being necessarily that specific but actually there is a bit of detail that is quite interesting and very specific and no less interesting for that in my view. But I think the other point about having a Māori Purposes Bill a very broad generic name is to reflect that there are quite a few different things that the bill is looking to do. As my colleague and friend Harete Hipango has noted it's an omnibus bill and four different pieces of existing legislation are amended and so to capture a pretty wide intent and to make life easier and better for those involved in those various entities it's got that pretty broad catch-all kind of title. So that's I guess a bit of background for anyone who is listening and is relatively new to it. If they've just switched on they've missed more erudite contributions than I'll be able to make but for what it's worth I do make that point.In terms of what the bill actually does as I mentioned there are four different pieces of legislation that are amended and I'll look to go through each of those in turn. There is more to say about some and for others less but if there's an overall feeling or vibe if I may it's that it's providing greater autonomy in relation to decision making and I think that's helpful whichever way one comes at that kind of philosophy. In the National Party we like to talk about limited government and having communities able to decide and determine their own fate as much as possible. Sometimes that's framed in negative terms—if we say limited government for example we might rail against Wellington not the city itself of course. I hear it's good on a nice day but I've only been here for a few years so I wouldn't know. But perhaps a more positive expression is the idea of localism which is the idea—albeit not in a local government context but a local decision-making philosophy—that those who are most directly impacted and affected by decisions that are made should have the right to participate in those to the maximum extent.There are a couple of examples within these amendments that I'd like to bring out on that point but just on that broad philosophical note I note that in the Māori world those who are more familiar with that than me—and I speak respectfully as someone who doesn't have any great knowledge or background particularly but my understanding is that the concept of tino rangatiratanga is at least according to one way of characterising it about self-determination and being able to control one's own affairs and that's appropriate.It is interesting that our colleague in the Green Party Dr Elizabeth Kerekere talked about a Green Party kaupapa of what they call appropriate decision-making so that's a different perspective on the same kind of philosophy that those who are closest to the impacts of decision making should be allowed to make those decisions to the greatest extent possible. Then we heard from our colleague and friend in the ACT Party through a private property lens and they are supportive of the general direction that the bill is taking us. So there are different ways to approach essentially the same question I think and perhaps because of that philosophical underpinning we're all able to come together in this House and continue to support the bill.Firstly the bill amends Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. As Mr Seymour noted quite rightly this is a law reform project that arguably should have already happened but no doubt will happen in due course. In relation to that there's a bigger piece of work but for now it's relevant to the work of this bill but it's nodding towards that work of Messrs Finlayson and Flavell and now Mooney with that member's bill in his name that we see in relation to the TTWM—as Te Ture Whenua Maori Act is often known—that the powers of the Māori Land Court under that Act to terminate a trust don't apply to a particular local trust and others have spoken more from a local perspective. Harete Hipango again has superior knowledge in this regard and I would defer to Ian McKelvie's knowledge of that geographical region as well. But with that trust having been established by the Māori Land Court in 1990 an auspicious year of course some century and a half after the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi it seems that it's intended by this bill not to allow that trust to be terminated in that way. I don't have a good understanding of what those issues are that have arisen in terms of the succession orders and how real it is as a possibility as opposed to a mere theoretical possibility that the Māori Land Court might terminate the trust but in any case this bill seems clear enough in placing beyond even that theoretical possibility of such termination.As for the Maori Purposes Act 1959 which is of course pretty close in name to the bill that is before us we see that among other things there's a right of entry to Lake Rotoaira—excuse the pronunciation—and the significance of the trout fishery there has been well-articulated by others. So it's clarifying that the right of entry to that lake without an entry permit doesn't authorise fishing. It's kind of interesting in itself actually just from statutory interpretation perspective in the sense that: if one has entry to a lake would one regard that as automatically implying that one has the ability to do things there? Not necessarily. I suppose it's unclear enough potentially on the books as it currently stands that providing some clarity through this legislation is deemed to be helpful. So that's one of the things that the bill does.It also increases low penalties for offences. It is currently $100 I understand. You don't get far for 100 bucks these days—and I note the cost of living crisis here inflation out of control etc. But all the same in all seriousness if there was to be a penalty that was to be meaningful of course it must have some sort of real-world application and effect. So to increase those penalties for breaching the right that some enjoy in relation to private property as our ACT colleagues would have it seems an obvious thing to do.I think the legislation that's currently on the books and is being amended by this bill that caught my eye the most was the Maori Trust Boards Act 1955. Among other things it provides for electronic voting. Sometimes the debate about electronic voting in other contexts as Dr Kerekere talked about is characterised in terms of increasing participation and balancing that against security and being able to have confidence that a ballot is fairly conducted and that the results reflect the genuine true will of the people. I'm not sure that even in terms of participation it is necessarily foolproof but in any case the Māori trust boards should they choose will be able to conduct their own elections in an electronic way and good luck to them I say. It certainly seems appropriate to allow them to exercise their own judgment about whether that's a way they want to be able to conduct their affairs.The Māori trust boards are removed from the Cabinet Fees Framework and while it's a different matter that's similar actually to a move made recently by this House to take various officers of our judicial system out of the Cabinet Fees Framework. Judges proper are already outside that but it was deemed appropriate by the House and I think unanimously supported—certainly National agreed—that Cabinet not be setting fees for officers and in this case a body that's outside the realm of the Government and of course it goes back to that big-picture theme of allowing determination and operations to be unencumbered by the dictates of the Government as much as possible. I say that in a positive way: devolution or even if one wanted to say decolonisation. I suppose that would be another way to frame it. But in any case it seems sensible to allow that kind of fee setting to take place without any perception even of political interference.Other changes are relatively minor but I think none the less worthwhile. I've joined others in my party and across the House it seems in continuing to support this bill. Therefore I commend the bill to the House.