SpeechHon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Minister for Māori Development): Tēnā koe Mr Chair. Kia ora tātau katoa o Te Whare ka mihi rānō rā ki a tātau katoa kua whakawhāiti mai i tēnei pō.[Thank you Mr Chair. My acknowledgments to all of us of the House right back to when all of us here this evening were involved.]I ran out of space last night to respond to some of the issues that were raised by the member who just took his seat Peeni Henare so I thought I would just come back and just bring us back to some of those issues before they get lost in the discussion. Members questioned the support for the reform and asked about the research as to whether the changes were actually needed. The reform has arisen out of a dialogue between Māori and the Crown over a long period of time. During this period a range of research and reviews has taken place and has always constantly identified the issues the reforms are seeking to address. That is why we are actually here.Concerns were raised about the reform process and that Māori land owners had not been given adequate time or been a part of the consultation process and did not necessarily fully understand the reforms. Let us just put it on the record. There have been more than 171 consultation hui with more than 3000 Māori land owners trustees and whānau attending the hui that were set up to discuss the reforms. Three drafts of the bill were released for consultation and many people took part obviously in the opportunity to comment on the workability of the proposals. For instance the first exposure draft of the bill led to about 109 provisions being amended and the removal of 28 provisions. During the select committee process 152 written submissions and 47 oral submissions were made to the Māori Affairs Committee. The select committee recommended a number of appropriate changes actually all of which—all of which—I have adopted and were taken into consideration at the second reading of this bill. Critics have said I have not listened and have made too many changes. On the other side of the coin I made the changes on what I actually heard and what I saw in submissions.Referring to the purpose statement Kelvin Davis last night questioned why the current Act had to be changed. Although the current Act was significant there are thousands of owners who remain disconnected from their land and fragmentation is getting worse not better. So while some trusts are doing quite well there are many that are actually struggling and the current Act does little to support those little unmanaged blocks. The current Act does not contain a disputes resolution mechanism and requires the Māori Land Court to spend from my perspective way too much time on administration instead of focusing on the judicial issues. This bill addresses each of these issues and by doing so this must benefit Māori land owners.Pita Paraone asked why we need to adopt a whole new bill stating that it would have been better to simply amend the current Act. Over the last 150 years almost 200 different laws and amendments have been passed affecting Māori land. The current Act has inherited a huge patchwork of complex rules many of which were designed sure for the time but are now way outdated. The review panel recommended full legislative change on the basis that this will provide the most fit for purpose and durable approach. Several members spoke about the principle that owners of Māori land have the right to decide how their land is used.Concerns were raised about small groups of owners dictating to the majority and how absent owners can participate in the decision-making process. Decisions about what happens to the land can be made only by a threshold majority of all owners not by a small group. The participating owners' model applies only to decisions about what happens on the land such as appointing a governance model. This is an important part of the policy of the bill that should avoid small groups basically taking over or capturing the process. By modernising the decision making the bill ensures everyone has the opportunity to participate including those who live away from their rohe. For instance owners will be able to attend meetings in person via a proxy or via telephone or internet-based technology. My hope is that they will be able to cast their votes using postal or email voting forms or through electronic voting systems.During the debate members raised concerns about the terminology that has been introduced. The language in the bill reflects as I said last night a deliberate change of focus and it has been carefully chosen. We got specialist advice on the choice and the use of the words and expressions in the technical context. This was especially so in relation to the term that was highlighted by Meka Whaitiri last night kaitiaki. Several options were considered around this notion of kaitiaki but the advice that we got was that kaitiaki was the most appropriate term for this role. Meka Whaitiri raised the concern under clause 7(7) around kaiwhakamarumaru that they are considered as owners of parcels or interests that they are managing. The current Act equivalent actually vests ownership in the trustee. Under the bill the interest does not vest in the kaiwhakamarumaru but to make sure the owner who is in this case a minor or possibly has a disability is protected third parties must deal with the kaiwhakamarumaru in the same way they would have to deal with an owner. So I hope that helps the member in respect of that.Ms Whaitiri also asked about the determination that has been addressed by Mr Henare about how we determine tikanga. It is determined against evidence. People have asked the question about whose evidence will apply. Tikanga Māori is not a matter of law; it is a matter of fact and Māori land owners will be supported to resolve those issues amongst themselves in a way they believe is appropriate according to their tikanga. They will be helped to resolve disputes over the content of tikanga Māori but the new dispute resolution service is about giving them a hand if they wish. As a last resort the parties will be able to go to court to resolve some of those disputes but the real hope is that we stay within our own tikanga to address tikanga issues. The person giving evidence in that case would state their experience with the relevant tikanga so that it is really clear they understand the relevant tikanga when it comes to that.Just to wrap up then about those issues raised last night Ms Whaitiri raised the issue about the SILNA beneficiaries. Just to respond to the member this clause makes sure that Māori owners at commencement are treated as being associated with the land in accordance with tikanga but because of the unique way that SILNA successors are defined in the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act it was necessary to explicitly exclude them in this provision. I hope that provides some background to the issue that the member raised last night. So that wraps up pretty much most of those issues that were dealt with last night. I look forward to the ongoing debate.