Maori Trustee and Maori Development Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Maori Trustee and Maori Development Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:645;Page:14566] 
Maori Trustee and Maori Development Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: I move  
That the Maori Trustee and Maori Development Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time a motion will be moved to refer this bill to the Maori Affairs Committee. 
This bill is the outcome of a very substantial amount of work over a long period of time. The Minister of Maori Affairs has been concerned for a very long period of time that there is too much in essence dead or poorly used money that could be better used or more actively used to underpin Maori social and economic development within a range of agencies. 
The bill also leads to some major changes which have been under consideration for some considerable period also to the nature and appointment of the Maori Trustee. What will happen under this bill is that the Maori Trustee will actually have its independence further recognised and given greater powers but also it will bring together a range of moneys. For example as part of this bill a certain amount of funding within Te Puni Kokiri will be capitalised and brought forward and put in as part of the funding that will be under the control of the Maori Trustee. At the end of this process in bringing together a range of funding it is hoped that the amount of money that will be under the control of the trustee will be sufficient to have a real leverage effect in terms of Maori social and economic development. 
With those few words I am happy to leave the remainder of this debate to those whom I acknowledge have more information and knowledge in this respect although I have been involved to some considerable extent in the development of this policy. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 First of all I congratulate Louisa Wall on her wonderful party political broadcast. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Looked good too! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: It looked good as well. 
We first got notice of the Maori Trustee and Maori Development Amendment Bill when it was included in a Maori Purposes Bill—something that is supposed to be non-controversial. The Minister thought that he might be able to slip this one through no worries and get it passed. But it was the National Party that saw through this. This is nothing more and nothing less than what should be called the “Maori Trustee Theft Bill”. Although I think that Dr Cullen has expertise in a lot of areas I wonder why he led off the debate and not the Minister of Maori Affairs. This bill is in the name of the Minister of Maori Affairs. It is not the Deputy Prime Minister’s bill; it is not the Minister of Finance’s bill. 
We have worked out that this is nothing more than the theft of $35 million. I will tell the community now and the members of the Maori Party if they are listening that I expect those Maori Party members to stand in the House tonight and do exactly what they did with the foreshore and seabed legislation which was promulgated by the same Minister—that is to vote against the theft of $35 million of beneficiary money. This is money that does not belong to every Maori in this country. It is money that belongs to beneficiaries who are beneficiaries of trusts and who are owners of land that has been put in the hands of the Maori Trustee to look after. 
What we have in this bill is nothing more than the development of an old idea—a Maori bank. But this is not a Maori bank like the Poutama. The Hon Shane Jones used to be the chairman of the Poutama Maori Business Trust and not a skerrick of any of that money went to the community for the development of any business ideas or towards any development ideas. What is the Minister doing about Maori development? He is preparing to thieve $35 million out of the back pockets of beneficiaries and use it for Maori development! 
I have here a little piece of paper about this that was pushed through to us and it says that the bill will establish a new independent statutory corporation. Well it cannot be independent because all the appointees to this corporation are appointed by the Minister of Maori Affairs and the Minister of Finance for goodness’ sake. It is nothing more than a Labour Party slush fund for Labour’s mates. 
The Minister of Maori Affairs has that little grin on his face that he gets when he has been found out. The Maori world is very small. There have been fellas who have come up to me and said: “Hey bro what’s this thing that Parekura is on about? You know this corporation—he’s asked me to serve on it.” One should not try to keep secrets in the Maori world because they get out. They dribble out now and then at different hui around the motu. So I asked this fella whether he knew that $35 million was being thieved out of the back pockets of Maori and given over to a corporation basically to do what is a State obligation. It is not a Maori obligation; it is a State obligation. The next thing we know Maori education will be being paid for out of the back pockets of beneficiaries who have a little bit of the 6 percent of land that is now in the hands of Maori. Up on the East Coast there is quite a bit of land that comes under the Maori Trustee. I wonder what those people would say about their money going out of their back pockets to fund some idea that this corporation has. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: It’s his own people. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Absolutely. They are the Ngati Porou people and the honourable Minister is a member of that tribal district. 
Mark Blumsky 
: He’s looking uncomfortable. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: He always looks uncomfortable. It may not be this bill. He always looks uncomfortable. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I will quote from a report that was done ironically by Richard Charters Annette Sykes and Tama Nikora way back when the Rt Hon Winston Peters was Minister of Maori Affairs. The report states: “The Maori Trustee must not provide funds for the Maori Education Foundation philanthropic purposes or the Maori Council.”—that is anything else other than the beneficiaries of this money. It states further: “These activities are affairs of State not beneficiaries.” 
I also point to the report of the Controller and Auditor-General in his report of I think 2004 in which he said: “The Trustee’s main role is to manage Maori land on behalf of its owners mostly through leasing for conventional farming. … The trustee also disburses rental funds and invests client funds when requested.” The report of the Auditor-General goes on to state that the trustee’s purpose is to “protect the interests of Maori clients and their land …”. That basically says that this is not an issue about Maori development. That can happen; that is the State’s responsibility. This is about a property right and the use of a property right that does not belong to all Maori. It does not belong to me; it belongs to the beneficiaries. In the same way that the Maori Party was created out of the furore of a property rights issue—the foreshore and seabed—I would suggest that everybody including the Greens vote against—[ 
Interruption 
] I say to Ms Turei that it is OK to have one view on one property rights issue but it is not OK to have another view on another property rights issue. 
At least New Zealand First has the principled approach of sending things to a select committee. It does not buy into this carry-on of having one view one day and the next day having another view on pretty much the same thing. At least New Zealand First sends things to a select committee and then things are discussed there. 
For the Government to put its hand in somebody else’s pocket is absolutely wrong. This is about property rights. This is about the theft of $35 million of beneficiary money. It is not for all Maori. It does not belong to all Maori. How dare the Government get up on its hind legs and say that this money belongs to all Maori. It does not. I cannot wait to get around the traps and say to Maori: “Here we go again.” A couple of years ago the Government tried it and the birth of the Maori Party happened. This time there will be more people who look at the DigiPoll and say: “Yeah I thought so. Labour isn’t doing anything for us.” 
Pita Paraone 
: The “Dodgypoll”. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Oh that is right—the “Dodgypoll”. The fact of the matter is that Labour has been behind in every poll since March last year. At the end of the day that is all it is about. Whether we see this bill go to the select committee is another story. The fact of the matter is that it is not long to go before we see the back end of this Government. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I call the honourable Minister Parekura Horomia. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a matter of order. The Minister was meant to take his turn earlier in the piece and I actually called you before he did. I am sorry—Dr Cullen took his call. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just advise the member that it is not a race about who stands up first and gets the call. Dr Cullen rightly took the first Labour call and the Hon Parekura Horomia is taking the third Labour call which he is entitled to do. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I listened with interest to the member who has just spoken Tau Henare. All of the things he has talked about are all of the things he did not do. 
The Maori Trustee and Maori Development Amendment Bill is about doing something for the future of Maori. The changes set out in this bill provide the foundations for real and significant progress on key issues affecting Maori. The bill provides a new start for the Maori Trustee by setting the trustee up as a stand-alone organisation and making a number of associated changes. The bill also establishes a new statutory corporation to further Maori economic development for the benefit of the beneficiaries which will bring a more cohesive approach to realising the potential of Maori business. The new corporation has the working name of Maori Business Aotearoa New Zealand—or MBANZ. To reflect these changes the bill amends the title of the Maori Trustee Act 1953 to the Maori Trustee and Maori Development Act 1953. These initiatives will help Maori to make the most of opportunities for development and innovation. 
The bill amends provisions relating to the Maori Trustee’s organisational form and financial accountability. The Maori Trustee undertakes a range of important and valued functions set out in the Maori Trustee Act and other legislation. The bill does not amend these functions which include administering land where the owners have not been located or where the owners have asked the trustee to do so. 
At present the Maori Trustee is an office conferred on an employee of Te Puni Kokiri. The bill will establish the Maori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation that is separate from Te Puni Kokiri. This will underline the independence of the Maori Trustee in carrying out the positions and fiduciary responsibilities. 
The bill provides for robust accountability for public funding by including the Maori Trustee on the fourth schedule of the Public Finance Act 1989. This will have the effect of applying appropriate reporting and other accountability provisions to the Maori Trustee in respect of funding provided by the Crown while maintaining the Maori Trustee’s independence. The reporting requirements will include preparing an annual report with a statement of service performance. Many a time in this House there have been challenges to organisations that have not done that. The bill provides that the Maori Trustee will be appointed by the Minister of Maori Affairs for a renewable term of up to 5 years. Further amendments enable the new stand-alone Maori Trustee to employ his or her own staff and appoint a deputy Maori Trustee. 
The bill also makes changes to the way in which interest on money held in trust in the common fund is determined and this is one of the key issues. The bill provides that the Maori Trustee must pay the amount earned by the trustee in interest less the management fee. The Maori Trustee will be required to review the amounts paid on a quarterly basis in light of appropriate market rates given the nature of the common fund and the conditions under which the trustee operates. 
Together these changes underline the Maori Trustee’s role and independence and enhance accountability for public funding while protecting and furthering the interest of the trustee’s beneficiaries. In August and September last year Maori were consulted on proposals to set up the Maori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation and there was a good turn-out at the consultation hui held around the country—owners turned out in their hundreds. There was broad-based support for the proposals I have just outlined provided that the Maori Trustee would be funded on a viable basis. 
The second major initiative in this bill is the establishment of a new statutory corporation. This will have the principal function of furthering Maori economic development by utilising the potential of resources available to Maori. The new statutory corporation has the working name of MBANZ—Maori Business Aotearoa New Zealand. It is the result of careful consideration of how to achieve greater synergies between development activities already being undertaken by Te Puni Kokiri the Maori Trustee the Government and potentially other organisations. 
During consultation with Maori earlier this year on the proposals for a stand-alone Maori Trustee a wider discussion emerged at hui about the possibility of the Maori Trustee taking more of a leadership role to promote Maori development. This feedback has been taken into account in the development of the new corporation. 
The board of the statutory corporation will be chaired by the Maori Trustee. The remaining members will be appointed by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Maori Affairs with the Maori Trustee. The board will be able to undertake services that enable it to fulfil its principal functions. These can include business support services identifying opportunities for economic development and developing the capacity to make loans and other payments to help beneficiaries and Maori set up new or developing businesses. As with any new body of this nature key considerations for the board will include its strategic direction and the nature and extent of the services it will be able to provide within its statutory responsibilities as the corporation gets under way. 
The corporation will be responsible for a new fund to enable it to carry out its functions. The fund will be made up of a significant contribution from the Government and a contribution of $35 million transferred from the general purposes fund. The general purposes fund is one of the funds that the Maori Trustee is responsible for under the Maori Trustee Act and currently it can be used for some development activities. There is the potential also for contributions from other organisations and that issue has been discussed. There will be ongoing discussions to ensure that that happens. 
The bill has a number of provisions that set out the powers duties and responsibilities of the board. The bill sets out accountability requirements which include holding a yearly public meeting and commissioning at regular intervals an independent review of the corporation’s performance. 
Finally the bill provides for a new schedule dealing with the detail of the board’s operations. The bill reflects the Government’s commitment to enabling Maori to realise their potential. It helps to ensure that the Maori Trustee is well placed to provide services to Maori in the future and this bill is about the Maori Trustee in the future. The new statutory incorporation chaired by the Maori Trustee will provide a cohesive focus for Maori economic development. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Thieves. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: That member chortles about thievery. Why are those members afraid of making the Maori Trustee stronger giving the Maori Trustee independence and ensuring that beneficiaries know where to go know how to go and know that they are continuously supported? There has been consultation on this matter and I want to share with the House that this bill will be one of the great advancements for Maori in this country. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to table a briefing note from the Minister about where the $35 million is coming from. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to table a copy of the 2004 report of the Controller and Auditor-General. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to table a copy of the 1991 review of the Office of the Maori Trustee. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 The Maori Trustee and Maori Development Amendment Bill will be a good test of the position of the Maori Party the Greens and New Zealand First because they need to reflect pretty clearly on what this Labour-led Government is doing in misappropriating $35 million of identifiable Maori moneys. Therefore the consultation should have been with those identifiable persons and land trusts. So this bill will be a very good test of where the Maori Party the Greens Metiria Turei and New Zealand First stand in relation to a Government that seeks to misappropriate Maori moneys. That is exactly what is being done with this bill. 
Dr Cullen who hurriedly took a call because the Minister in charge of this bill was not ready to take the call gave two reasons for it. Firstly he said there was a lot of dead money or poorly used money sitting around. Secondly he said the Maori Trustee needed to be reorganised or reformed to face the challenges of the future. So what is the Government’s answer? Its answer is basically to set the Maori Trustee up on a funding agreement with the Government to make the Maori Trustee dependent now on the Government and also to set up a new corporation to be funded by and large by Maori moneys—$35 million—taken from the Maori Trustee and put into a new corporation that will be there for the development of all Maori. I ask the House whether the same thing would happen in the general environment. For instance would New Zealanders agree to the Public Trust’s funds being taken misappropriated put into another corporation and used for the development of all New Zealanders? I do not think so but that is exactly the same as what is happening under this bill. 
However much the Government wants to dress the situation up and say there is a general purposes fund that is available for development there is no getting past the point that the Government is misappropriating Maori moneys. The Government actually tried to do that recently with regard to the Crown Forestry Rental Trust. That trust’s moneys are not necessarily all Maori moneys but it is likely that a fair proportion is. Last November to the Government’s discredit again through not understanding the responsibilities of trusteeship the Government tried to take to itself in the settlement with Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa Trust moneys from that fund to put into this new corporation. But that was stopped by Maori through a court action. I hope that Maori do the same here. I hope that those who are discernible Maori beneficiaries will take court action—litigation—to stop the thievery or statutory theft that is about to take place. That is what is happening here. 
The Minister raved on about his so-called consultation hui. He wrote out to all Maori all over the country and he says he obtained approval for what he is doing. But nothing in the reports of the consultation says that the identifiable beneficiaries approve of what he is now doing—nothing whatsoever. The Minister should be ashamed to come into this House and take funds that largely come from Ngati Porou to Waiariki—Te Arawa mainly and some from the north I think; largely from three or four identifiable areas—and stand up as though he is doing something great for Maori. He is doing something that Pakeha would never condone. They would never condone the Labour-led Government taking funds out of the Public Trust and using them for all New Zealanders. But that is the same as what the Minister is doing. It is no wonder he was not ready to take his call earlier. He knows that he is doing the wrong thing. 
The other thing about this measure is the Government’s patronising attitude or condescension. It says poor Maori do not know how to use their money properly so it is going to take it from them. The Government is setting up a whole new corporation and says it will distribute that largesse as though it is the Minister’s to all and sundry because Maori do not know how to handle their money. That essentially is what the Government and the Minister are saying. We say the Maori Trustee cannot do his job; actually he has not done it. Although he has travelled a hang of a lot overseas in the last year he has not done the basic tasks that are required of that trustee. But if the Maori Trustee cannot do his job rather than this Government misappropriating these funds I say they should be handed back to where they belong. The Minister should consider doing that. 
The Minister should reconsider what he is doing in distributing largesse to all and sundry. First of all that is not right and secondly it is condescending to treat Maori as if they are of no wit and cannot handle their own affairs. But that is typical of a Labour Government is it not—absolutely typical of a Labour Government. Labour Governments have been like that since mai rano. They say: “Bring everything back to the centre; we know best.” 
That Minister actually runs a department. It is called Te Puni Kokiri. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: He doesn’t run it; Leith does. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: Well right—OK it has a chief executive but this Minister is in charge of it. A colleague of mine Gerry Brownlee still does not know what that Minister does with his department. Actually some days we do not know that either. Sometimes we do not know either—OK? And the Minister has the cheek to set up a new corporation in order to progress development. His department cannot even use the funds it has properly. Te Puni Kokiri cannot even use the funds it has to do development properly anyway. 
As I say this is typical though of a Labour-led Government. This is a good test— 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: And that is how good you were. You made him the spokesperson on Maori Affairs. Shame on the National Party—when you were there and Tau was there putting down the spokesperson for Maori— 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Of course that member is bringing you into the argument and you held me up for doing that. So I wish you would do the same to him. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I was actually calling the member to order. But please will the member now continue. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: As I said earlier this Minister ought to be ashamed of himself. He is bringing in a bill in the last throes of a Labour-led Government—thank goodness for that—that in other circumstances and if he had reorganised the trustee office properly might have been acceptable. But in this case it is not. It is not acceptable because the Minister is stealing money from Peter and giving it to Paul Matthew and everybody and he has no right to do that. He is setting up a Maori corporation and we have done that before I tell the Minister. We have done that before and it did not work—it did not work OK? The Government can use its own moneys. Where else do we take money from identified people and give it to somebody else? 
I say to the Minister that he should concentrate on running Te Puni Kokiri properly because that department is pretty hopeless. It is pretty hopeless. And the other thing I say is that I will be very interested to see where the Maori Party puts its vote tonight because there is no doubt that this measure is absolutely wrong. What this Government is doing is absolutely wrong. It is tantamount to another “foreshore and seabed” and as I say I will be very interested to see where the Maori Party puts its vote. 
Ron Mark 
: Its coalition partner. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: And as for the New Zealand First members I tell them that they need to read the report my colleague referred to arising from the inquiry that Winston Peters set up in 1991. There was no doubt in the minds of those reviewers as to whom these funds belonged to. They do not belong to all Maori and why New Zealand First should be supporting this Government—who knows? 
In closing I ask the Minister seriously to withdraw this bill. 
Dianne Yates 
: No! 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: Well of course it is only natural that some of his colleagues there would say “No!” because they do not bother about who owns property. They are not worried about who owns property. These assets are identifiable. They are owned by certain people and families these land blocks and this Minister has no right—absolutely no right—to misappropriate these funds. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Dianne Yates 
: Oh not again. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: There is to be no comment at all during a point of order. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I have been booted out of this House on a number of occasions for interrupting on a point of order. I know that you have just ruled Mr Assistant Speaker but I suggest that Government members are accorded the same “privilege” that was accorded me on a number of occasions. My point of order is that during the Minister’s speech he motioned to me as if I was to ask a question. I therefore seek leave of the House to ask the Minister a question. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The House is the master of its own destiny and the member is perfectly entitled to do that. The member has sought leave. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is objection. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. In 1921 the Government of the day created a position ostensibly to protect and enhance the interests of Maori clients and their resources. That position was the Maori Trustee. It was a position created by legislation to manage the adverse effects of fragmented multiple ownership of Maori land. Significantly the office of the Maori Trustee was expected to provide fair proper and prudent administration and management of clients’ assets within the principles and obligations of trusteeship and agency. 
Such a heavy investment in accountability and transparency was a logical expectation of the fact that the Maori Trustee was set up to take over the role of the Public Trustee. Yet 70 years after establishment how disappointing it was to read in analysis by G V and S M Butterworth that “Neither the Public Trustee nor the Maori Trustee and his administration exercised their responsibilities in the best long-term interests of those Maori whose land and revenue was vested in the trustee.” 
Pita Paraone 
: Who were the Butterworths? 
Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: That is a good question. I repeat: “in the best long-term interests of those Maori.” Clearly 1991 was a turning point year for the Maori Trustee. In that same year Ngai Tahu made a number of allegations concerning the failure of the Crown’s appointed trustee to administer reserve lands properly. These allegations included failing to consult the owners failing to act as a prudent trustee failing to take action to amalgamate land titles and develop lands and failing to prevent land from being taken for public works. The Ngai Tahu report 1991 is mandatory reading for understanding how well the Maori Trustee meets the trustee’s statutory responsibilities—and they are sizable responsibilities. 
The Maori Trust Office currently administers more than 2200 properties and special trusts. It cares for more than 156000 owners and it manages some 115000 owner accounts. So when we read through background reports that suggest that the best long-term interests of Maori have not been given due and proper accord we have to wonder about this new bill. 
The Butterworth report also referred to large capital expenditure with little return problems surrounding the collection and distribution of rents inadequate consultation with beneficial owners in respect of these matters and other concerns. We remain unconvinced when we fast forward to September 2007 and read that the Federation of Maori Authorities has said: “Currently as an administrator of Maori land it is our view that any value added is limited.” 
Set against this backdrop of concerns and the longstanding issues and reviews that have taken place over the years one would be expecting a miracle to bring about the changes required to accelerate Maori development. Such a transformation is not inconceivable. Indeed Paul Morgan the Chief Executive of the Federation of Maori Authorities goes as far as to suggest there is significant potential and that this should be provided for in the legislation. 
Indeed as we know there have been many and vast improvements and achievements over the years which the Maori Trustee has helped to prosper. Sir Apirana Ngata during his parliamentary term drew on Maori Trust moneys to support the unemployed. The Maori Trust fund was a benefactor to support Maori into homes by using the funds as a second mortgage or even by authorising loans to enable the purchase of furniture for new homeowners. The trade training schemes would never have been as successful as they were had it not been for the hostels— 
Ron Mark 
: They were shut down. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: —which the Maori Trustee purchased to house apprentices—exactly—in both Auckland and Christchurch. The Maori Trustee made contributions to the Maori Purposes Fund Board to enable the publication of Maori literature and it also played a large role in supporting Te Maori exhibition that showcased Maori art forms and taonga to the world. 
Alongside of the then Maori Education Foundation the Maori Trustee also assisted in the establishment of the kohanga reo movement yet sadly much of this work has never been widely appreciated as the Maori Trustee was locked up and encased within the bureaucracy of the Maori Affairs department. 
The ongoing issues of independence of the Maori Trustee from the Crown will plague the new organisation proposed in this bill unless the Minister has the courage to invest in a strategic vision for Maori economic development. But here is the crunch. The legislation aims to transfer $35 million from the Maori Trustees general purposes fund to establish this new statutory corporation. This fund according to the Charters Sykes and Nikora review of 1991 is income derived from the beneficiaries and not the Maori Trustee. How this works is that the interest earned on the common fund—money held in trust available for loan—is credited to the general purposes fund owned by the Maori Trustee. Effectively the statute empowers the Maori Trustee to operate on beneficiaries’ incomes. If you like it is comparable to a solicitor using the interest on his or her clients’ funds to run the solicitor’s business. So we have $35 million of Maori money being put alongside $40 million of Crown money to establish a stand-alone organisation. Even from the viewpoint of the quantity of the investment this is an absolute investment in failure. 
In 2001 the Maori Affairs Committee report on the Maori Trustee drew the attention of the Government to the ongoing issue about whether the funding received by the trustee was at an appropriate level for the trustee to fulfil his role. If the solution to that question was meant to be this bill then it has got it badly wrong. The bill proposes the establishment of a new statutory corporation Maori Business Aotearoa New Zealand founded on money that the Charters Sykes and Nikora review has proven to be in doubt. Even if the Maori Trustee has the right to donate moneys from the general purposes fund to this new incorporation the tokenistic amount suggested by the Government merely confirms more of the same old handholding paternalistic patronising behaviour of a Government destined to perpetuate dependency. 
I recall as a member of the Maori Education Foundation that the Government in establishing that entity provided a subsidy of 3:1. For every Maori dollar invested the Government would match it with $3. That is the type of foresight we would have applauded in this bill but instead we have insufficient funding to hope for success and legislative bungling that continues the apron-strings approach to Treaty justice. 
The proposal to establish Maori Business Aotearoa New Zealand is constrained also by the decision to have a Crown-appointed Maori Trustee in the key governance role as well as in the management and implementation role. This is the classic behaviour of a Government that wants to continue benefiting from the puppeteer role manipulating all the strings available to it to continue to wield total control. What we have in reality with this bill is a Government that seeks to get its hands on Maori moneys the possibility of legal doubt being cast upon the validity of using beneficiary funds for establishing a new entity and then the risk that the Crown will jeopardise any independent status through influencing the making of political appointments. 
The Butterworth report concluded: “the Maori Trustee like the Public Trustee before had increasingly been used to serve the interests of others ahead of the beneficial owners of the land in his charge”. We support the view of the Federation of Maori Authorities that Maori should have a say in the appointment of the Maori Trustee not the Minister of Maori Affairs. 
It is also doubtful whether a trustee appointed by the Government of the day will be able to challenge the Minister’s directives to protect his or her clients’ interests. The conflict inherent in being an agent of the Crown and a trustee for Maori owners is simply too strong to achieve even the appearance of independence. 
The Maori Party will not support this bill. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. I want to take just a very short call on the Maori Trustee and Maori Development Amendment Bill. The Greens will be supporting it— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Will be what? 
METIRIA TUREI 
: We will be supporting it; I say thank you to Mr Henare. 
We had very serious concerns about the legislation when the Government first raised it with us and initially we refused to support it. We have spoken to a few other people about some of the issues and sought more advice on it. After looking at it a bit more closely I am very firmly of the view that we need to crack this open and look at it. I agree that there is a serious issue here about the misuse of Maori Trustee money. I want to see where the levers are what is going on with this legislation and what the Government is intending to do. 
I think that the National Party in particular with the badgering it is doing is not really engaged in a practical process. If Mr Henare had wanted to provide me with further information about National’s position on the bill he was always open to do that but badgering me on the night of the vote is of course very unhelpful. We would like to see what is going on with it. I agree that there are really serious concerns and we make no promises to the Government or to anybody else about what our future vote on this legislation will be. 
There are members in this Parliament who have a great deal of historical knowledge about the Maori Trustee and its purposes and about the things that have happened in the past. What is not well known is the purpose of the Maori Trustee what it does and how it operates in the general public view and amongst Maori as well. This bill will give us a chance to crack the trustee open have a good look and make sure it comes under public scrutiny because if there are dodgy things going on with both the legislation and some of the other practices that this new development body might want to undertake then we will be able to find that out expose it and bring legislation down in the future. 
But at this stage I am very keen to look at what this legislation does and to expose it to the transparent view of the public particularly of Maori who have the closest association. If in the end it turns out that this is wrong and bad legislation—bad for Maori a misuse of money a misappropriation of property—then the Greens will not support it. But until we are clear and sure of that we are happy to support the bill at least going to the select committee. Thank you. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Tena ano tatou o te Whare nei. 
Firstly can I say that I take part in the first reading of this bill with some mixed feelings in the sense that it was not too long ago that I actually worked in the office of the Maori Trustee ending my term of employment with that office as the regional operations manager in Whangarei. In listening to the debate so far I empathise with the staff of the Maori Trust Office if they are listening to this debate. In the former Department of Maori Affairs when the services of that department were devolved there was a lot of anxiety amongst staff. I am sure that if Maori Trust Office staff are listening to this debate tonight their anxiety will certainly be heightened particularly by some of the comments that have been made. But having said that I suppose I do declare my vested interest in this particular bill because of my being a former staff member. 
I cannot continue without making some reference to the fact that the reading of this bill was commenced by the Minster of Finance. He said in his opening remarks that this was a very very important bill for the Minister of Maori Affairs and I was somewhat surprised that that Minister did not take the first call. However he did redeem himself by taking part when he did. 
I will reiterate some of the work that the Maori Trustee actually does. First of all the position is a corporation sole created by the enactment of the Maori Trustee Act 1953 and its role is to help manage Maori land. It is independent of the Crown but is subject to controls similar to those applying to Government departments. It reports annually to Parliament it has been in existence since 1921 and it is now governed by the Maori Trustee Act 1953. The Maori Trustee is responsible for acting either as a trustee or an agent for owners of Maori land usually in leasing that land collecting and paying rent and other income to owners investing trust moneys keeping landowners informed about how their land is managed and also looking after unclaimed moneys. As a consequence of that duty from time to time a list of unclaimed moneys is regularly published for distribution to organisations around the country. But the Maori Trustee also has the task of keeping landowners informed about how their land is managed and about the investment of trust moneys. 
I have to ask myself with this bill what new responsibilities will the Maori Trustee have? Can the intent of this bill not be implemented by way of any form of legislation other than separate legislation whereby this bill is calling for the separate establishment of an organisation called Maori Business Aotearoa New Zealand? If we look at the acronym it is MBANZ; I just wonder whether it should be “rubber bands”. I ask this question: why are we doing this? In terms of those who have already contributed to this debate and criticised the Minister I must say that I would have to side with the Minister as his intent is to look at the economic development of Maori. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: Can’t even do that properly. 
PITA PARAONE 
: Well that is why we ought to be supporting any legislation that does that for Maori. The big question surrounding this legislation that has been raised by a number of speakers tonight concerns the use of the $35 million that is currently in the general purposes fund. I know that the Minister through his department has had a number of consultation huis around the country— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Who with? 
PITA PARAONE 
: —with various Maori organisations and some beneficiaries. But I have it on good authority—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just advise members on both my left and right that the rules permitting interjections are predicated on the assumption that the person being interjected against has the call. There are members on my right and my left who do not have the call and therefore are not permitted to interject against each other. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As a point of clarification my interjections were to comments that were made by the speaker not by another member of the House. I just want to clear that up. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member but the reality is that it has been going on all night. 
PITA PARAONE 
: Reference has been made to the sum of $35 million. At the present time I understand that that money is held in the general purposes fund of the Maori Trust Office. The big question is who actually owns that money. Although most of it is probably unclaimed moneys at the end of the day I believe that those still belong to the beneficiaries—whoever they might be and wherever they might be—or to their estates. However as I alluded to earlier on a number of consultation huis were held around the country. I am given to understand that no reference was made to the intended use of this money by the new organisation so I am not quite sure whether in fact Maori beneficiaries are aware of this. This is one of the reasons why New Zealand First will certainly be supporting this bill being referred to a select committee. We have always maintained that the select committee process gives the people of New Zealand the opportunity to have their say on legislation. I believe we will certainly hear from those who are affected by this bill and we will hear what their thoughts are on the use of this funding. 
The development of an old idea was what one speaker referred to earlier and he was making reference to a Maori bank. Perhaps this could be seen as a Maori bank but at the end of the day it can only be established at the behest of the Maori people of New Zealand. If they do not support it then what is the point of having something like this? 
Another question I would like to ask is why are we having a new entity? Why are we establishing an organisation a group that is alleged to be independent? I ask myself how independence can be had if the board in its make-up and the chairman—in this case the Maori Trustee—will all be Crown-appointed. I know that some members of the House have strong feelings about this and again I think that the select committee process will allow those who will be affected by it to express their views. And I ask this final question: why can legislative changes not be implemented outside the scope of this bill in order to achieve the aim that I am sure all members of this House want for New Zealand let alone for the Maori people? 
In conclusion I reiterate the stance that New Zealand First will be taking on this bill. We will certainly be supporting it going to a select committee. Kia ora. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Minister of State) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. I take the opportunity to take a brief call in support of this bill which is aptly titled the Maori Trustee and Maori Development Amendment Bill. I also look forward to the bill being directed to the Maori Affairs Committee because that will provide the opportunity for public submissions on the bill itself. I think that is important at this stage because a lot of the comments I have heard made in this House by earlier speakers give me a feeling that they have not bothered to read this bill they have not bothered to take note of the number of consultation hui around the country and that they are simply just out of touch with what is happening in Maoridom in terms of Maori business and economic development. 
I would also make the comment that I feel a number of contradictions were made by earlier speakers who on the one hand are very very knowledgable in terms of the history of the establishment of the Maori Trustee and of the contributions the Maori Trustee has made to Maori social and economic development over a number of years but at the same time they have said in this House that they will not support this bill. I get the feeling that some people will support something when they are in receipt of the benefits but when it comes to a benefit that they themselves do not have the intellectual grunt to take advantage of they are totally opposed to it. 
Maori economic development is the way into the future for Maori. People cannot stand in this House and say that they want Maori to be independent and at the same time in their lifetime they have bled the Maori Trustee dry when it comes to a benefit that would elevate the status of all Maori. They are totally opposed to it. But I will give them one thing: they do know their history but they have very selective memories when it comes to recalling it. 
I want to speak a bit more about the consultation hui that were undertaken around the country. There is an assumption in this House that Maori who attend these types of consultation hui have no interest in the unclaimed moneys in the Maori Trustee. These are unclaimed moneys and they have been held in trust for beneficiaries in the hope they would come forward one day and claim them. That makes a lot of sense surely. So why are those members so opposed to that? 
I know of a number of people who did attend the consultation hui and wanted to know a number of things. Firstly they wanted to know why the functions of the Maori Trustee have been incorporated into Te Puni Kokiri and it has been difficult to understand. They do support the Maori Trustee being a stand-alone organisation with a wide range of services being provided to Maori and not just holding money for the sake of holding it because the only ones who are benefiting from that money being held in the general purposes fund are the banks; they are the only ones. Maori are getting no benefit from that. Why are they so concerned with the interests of the banks and not the interests of Maori? Listening to the debate in this House tonight it does not make a lot of sense. 
The people from my particular area in the Bay of Plenty who went to the hui want to see an enhancement of the acceleration of Maori economic development and they see the Maori Trustee playing an important role in that. They are not saying that funds should be set aside. They are saying that the Maori Trustee should play an active role. If it has been there since 1921 and it has been accumulating unclaimed moneys since that time it needs to be set free. It needs to be utilised for the benefit of Maori going into the future. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: It needs to go back to the areas it came from. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: I listened to the Hon Georgina te Heuheu making her comments. Maybe she should go and have a good read of the bill. Maybe she should go and learn a bit from her people because a lot of the moneys that are unclaimed come from the Ngati Tuwharetoa area. Nobody knows why that is but there is certainly not a lot— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Why don’t you leave it alone then? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: Nobody knows where these people are and that is why the money is held there. Rather than letting the banks keep making money out of Maori interests we should let the Maori people themselves enjoy those benefits. 
I heard the Hon Tau Henare a former short-term Minister of Maori Affairs make a number of comments about this particular bill. I was a regional senior manager for Te Puni Kokiri at the time he was Minister and I do not recall anything passing over my desk from him suggesting any way forward for Maori economic development. In fact I saw the money going the other way back into the Crown bank account. People have very selective memories as I said earlier on. 
I did say that my call would be a very short one. I am looking forward to sitting down in the select committee and listening to what the people have to say about the utilisation of these unclaimed moneys. Unclaimed moneys—they do have this title even though they have been held in a general purposes fund. Georgina te Heuheu said there is a list of beneficiaries. In fact there is not. If there were the Maori Trustee would have the legal responsibility to ensure those beneficiaries received a return from the Maori Trustee. These moneys are unclaimed and have accumulated interest. The suggestion that the intention is to misappropriate those moneys is totally ludicrous. This money is going towards Maori development and what is wrong with that? Why is National opposed to that? Surely every Maori in this House—although entitled to ask questions about the technical aspects of this bill—supports Maori moving forward even if there are a couple of members who cannot bring themselves to support this bill. Once again I say I am looking forward to the select committee process to hearing from Maori from all around the country and to convincing those two members that this is good for Maori. Kia ora. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I listened very carefully to what the New Zealand First member Pita Paraone said about the Maori Trustee and Maori Development Amendment Bill because much of what he said made a lot of sense. The primary issue as I understand it from what he said is that there is a need to take a good look at the office of the Maori Trustee. I do not disagree with him at all for reasons I will explain in the course of this speech. When one goes through the history of the Maori Trustee one sees there are serious issues that need to be addressed. 
The point that makes this bill unacceptable to the National Party is Part 2 and the way in which the $35 million which has been referred to in debate is being filched from the general purposes fund and put into this new body to be used for general Maori development. I think it is one of those issues where although one would normally support a bill to the first reading so it can be properly addressed in the select committee one cannot do it here because the bill is odious in respect of Part 2. 
As I said some history is required. I noted in Dr Sharples’ speech that the genesis for him was in 1921 with the creation of the office of the Maori Trustee. Let me go back to 1882 and the passage of the then Native Reserves Act of 1882 which provided for the vesting of Crown administered Maori reserves in the Public Trustee. The Public Trustee was the first trustee who was appointed. The trustee had power to lease reserves and collect and distribute the resulting rents to beneficial owners after deducting expenses. The board of the Public Trust Office was extended by the appointment of two Maori trustees. My reading of the history of the Public Trustee’s involvement indicates that it was all pretty unsatisfactory. The board failed to meet regularly and did not provide an opportunity for its Maori members to represent Maori 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 as I said a few minutes ago; 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. Because of the concerns on the part of Maori owners at the administration of their reserves by the Public Trustee the whole issue was looked at in 1913. There was a commission into the Public Trust Office that recommended that Maori reserves and their administration be vested in an independent body. That is how the Maori Trustee was born after the First World War in 1920. 
Then 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. It seems that following that time there was the elimination of all administrative signposts of independence and a gradual dissipation of the pool of expertise in the office. From the point of view of the Maori beneficiaries the situation was very unsatisfactory. As Butterworth—to whom Dr Sharples referred—said there was little room left “for initiative or imagination and its ultimate effect was to turn the Native Trustee into a bureaucratic arm of the Department rather than a prudential financial institution and agent of his beneficiaries.” So there is no doubt that there have been concerns about the way in which the office of the Maori Trustee and its predecessor the Public Trustee have administered these funds for over 100 years and there are some serious issues that need to be addressed. 
I know that Mr Paraone correctly referred to the summary of the role of the Maori Trustee from Te Puni Kokiri’s website. He really emphasised the key points and I want to emphasise them as well. The Maori Trustee is independent of the Crown; accountable to landowners and the Maori Land Court; and as Mr Paraone said is responsible for acting either as a trustee or as an agent for the owners of land for collecting and paying rent and other income to owners and for investing trust moneys. The point that needs to be emphasised time and time again is that the Maori Trustee is operating an important prudential and trustee function. He or she is not part of the Crown or subordinate to the Crown in any way whatsoever. Then one has to look at the Maori Trustee Act of 1953. Mr Paraone correctly identified that in section 23 there are a number of accounts within the Maori Trustee’s account. There is the special investment account; the common fund which Mr Ririnui referred to; and the general purposes fund. When one looks at section 32 one sees that there are special purposes for which funds or moneys in the general purposes fund may be used and they are set out there—for example section 32(1)(a) states: “the trustee may advance money for the benefit of Maoris or descendants of Maoris upon such terms as to repayment as he sees fit; and upon such security (if any) as he sees fit”. Given the trustee nature of it it is not for the benefit of Maori generally but for the Maori beneficiaries. That is the way those sections have to be read. Let us face it: the Maori Trustee is a trustee who has to look out for in a prudential way and in accordance with the Maori Trustee Act the interests of the beneficiaries. 
So what does this bill do? I would be prepared to contemplate supporting Part 1 at least to a select committee but Part 2 renders the bill totally unacceptable. We say that the Government needs to go back and look at it again. Part 2 establishes a new organisation called Maori Business Aotearoa New Zealand. Its functions are referred to in new section 55 inserted by clause 15. There can be no objection to setting up a body such as this to further the economic development of Maori; it is the way it is done in new section 59 that immediately makes this legislation unacceptable. The objectionable section that we place some reliance on section 59(2) provides that the Maori Trustee must transfer as a contribution to the fund of this new organisation Maori Business Aotearoa New Zealand the sum of $35 million from the general purposes fund. We say that that is an unauthorised appropriation of $35 million which properly belongs to the beneficiaries of the Maori Trustee. These funds are not available—or should not be available—to be filched by the Government. They belong to the beneficiaries and indeed they and no other persons are the ones who should be consulted. Sending out 49000 letters in a general kind of way as the Associate Minister referred to in his speech is unacceptable. 
A very important question was asked by the Hon Georgina te Heuheu when she asked what the response of New Zealanders would be if the Public Trustee’s accounts were raided to apply funds for the benefit of all New Zealanders. One simply cannot do that. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: That’s a very good analogy. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Thank you Dr Mapp. It is a good analogy. The point is that you cannot do it—and by “you” I am not meaning you Mr Assistant Speaker. I am using “you” in the sense of “one cannot do it” because I would not contravene the Standing Orders by referring to you in person. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: The royal “one”. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The royal “one.” So that is the objection of the National Party. This bill is badly drafted. Part 2 is odious. It cannot be referred to a select committee and tidied up because there is nothing to tidy up. It is one of those situations where the bill should be rejected at the first reading because what we have here is a misappropriation of $35 million out of the general purposes fund. 
Let me conclude by emphasising that the bill raises some important questions. I for one having gone through the Maori Trustee Act of 1953 and looked at the history of the Maori Trustee think there are some very important questions that need to be addressed particularly concerning strengthening the independence of the Maori Trustee separating the Maori Trustee from Te Puni Kokiri and so on. Those sorts of issues are worthy of consideration but Part 2 is objectionable. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 Kia ora ano tatou. E te mangai o te Whare i te tuatahi me mihi atu au ki te uri o Tuwharetoa kua hou mai ki roto i to tatou Whare Paremata i tenei rangi. Ahakoa na tana iwi ia i hara mai na tana tuakana a Georgina te Heuheu ia i tautoko i tana hakari me tapiri e ahau enei kupu torutoru oku hei whakanui i a ia i te aroaro tana whanau i te nui o te honore kua whakawhiwhia ki a ia i tenei ra. Kia ora. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Greetings to us once again. In the first instance Mr Assistant Speaker I should extend a greeting to the relative of Tuwharetoa who entered Parliament today. Even though it was her people who brought her here it was Georgina te Heuheu her peer who endorsed her at the feast for her; I should add these few words of mine to magnify her in the presence of her family because of the great honour that was bestowed upon her today. Thank you 
.] 
Apopo maku ano waku e hakamaori e hakapakeha engari e pai ana. Tena ano tatou katoa e te Whare. 
[ 
Tomorrow I will translate what I say in Maori to English but it is fine. Salutations to us all once again in the House 
.]  
This bill the Maori Trustee and Maori Development Amendment Bill will pass despite the actions of Dr Pita Sharples of the Maori Party in not conveying to this hardworking industrious very popular Minister to my right—the Hon Parekura Horomia—that they were withdrawing their support for this overdue example of institutional reform. This particular bill will ensure that the resources of the fund called the Maori Trustee are available to fulfil a modern purpose and able to be used to drive Maori into the future. Maori have a bright future but we must not allow future opportunities to be hobbled by legislation that is rooted in the colonial past and for those reasons it is a very very sad but predictable act that we have seen today from Dr Sharples. 
It is fair enough that the Hon Tau Henare should oppose this bill; he was born to oppose although he tried incessantly for the period of time he was the Minister. I have to confess he did some innovative things in his time although I cannot recollect one of them while I am on my feet. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Didn’t I put you on Poutama? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: That reminds me—this bill will allow for any surplus funds in funds such as the Poutama Maori Business Trust or even the Crown Forestry Rental Trust to find a home in the future. That is why this bill provides an opportunity for future expansion. But of course all that lies in the future with the inevitable settlement of the claims which is why this is a brilliant vessel that has been modernised and through using the powers of this House the sovereignty of the House we are able to effect this overdue exercise in modernisation. [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Wayne Mapp seeks a call. 
This bill simply picks up on the work that earlier reviewers wrote about wasting time and ink and as a consequence of Parekura Horomia’s extremely expansive view into the future and a willingness to go to Nga Hau e Wha not a single tribe was overlooked by the Minister of Maori Affairs as he has sought to drag the Maori Trustee into the modern world. Tena koe e te Minita. To kaha ki te whakahau i tenei kaupapa mo te kaitiaki Maori pupuri i nga toenga whenua. 
[ 
Well done Minister. You have imposed your will very strongly on this proposal relating to the Maori Trustee and Maori Development Amendment Bill. 
] 
So all power to the Minister to care for the Maori Trustee modernise it and ensure that these increasingly fragmented pieces of land and ever increasingly smaller slivers of money can be brought together as we say in the Maori language whakatopu consolidated rationalised and brought together to fulfil a very strong purpose. Who knows? I have no doubt as perhaps Mr Henare and others fear it will grow and move away from the past when Maori were not able to exercise the right levels of accountability over this institution. This fund will inevitably grow through good stewardship which will reflect the quality of the decisions that the Minister makes. 
I commend this bill. Where it is capable of being refined I have no doubt that the fine minds of the select committee will effect that purpose. Kia ora tatou. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 We certainly heard a confession tonight did we not. It was that the revised superior model Maori Trustee that the previous speaker referred to will be receiving funds from the Crown Forestry Rental Trust. I want to examine the implications of that particular statement because it is fundamental to the reasons why National is opposed to this bill. 
Earlier today Louisa Wall of Tuwharetoa was inducted into this House. Much of the funds in the Crown Forestry Rental Trust actually belong to Tuwharetoa. So what does the Minister propose? He is going to put it into a general fund to benefit all Maori. What is that? That is expropriation. I am not surprised that many members of the Labour Party would think to expropriate assets that clearly belong to a particular group of people and then spend them for the general benefit. But I must say I am surprised that Mr Shane Jones with his understanding of private property rights and the rights that people accrue to property would want to do that. He was the only member today who confessed to the Government’s real intent here and I think that should make Maori people very concerned about the intentions of this Government. 
Shane Jones said that the bill would be passed into law. I have a prediction to make for members on the other side of the House: this bill will not be passed into law. Yes it will go to a select committee but is that select committee going to report back in the next couple of months? Will there be a passage into law by say July or August or September of this year? Unless the Government is going to shove it through with no consultation the answer is no. Therefore I predict that this bill will never pass into law. 
I turn to this issue: the whole concept of the Maori Trustee referred to by members across the House is a relic of paternalism. The whole idea that the Maori Trustee can get a general fund of $35 million essentially expropriated from beneficiaries to go into general causes absolutely reflects the paternalistic nature of the Maori Trustee as it was originally enacted. I know members will say “Ah but this is the modern trustee with modern purposes reflecting the needs of a modern community.” If that is so why is the Government passing a law that would effectively continue a paternalistic expropriation approach to Maori assets? When we on this side of the House say it is thievery the other side proclaims shock and horror that we would use such a term but we are using it because it means that the property of particular people is transferred to the general class of people at large. That is why we say thievery. Taking the property of an individual or group of individuals and transferring it to other people without their consent or will is not the modern way. 
Quite clearly the role of the Maori Trustee needs to be reformed. There has been an opportunity over the last 8 years for this Government to have done that very thing—basically to get back to the fundamental principles and work out why we have the Maori Trustee and what modern purpose it forms. How does something that essentially originates out of paternalism fit the modern and contemporary world particularly when so many iwi are getting substantial settlements and there is an opportunity to look at those assets and ask who they really belong to? Even if we cannot identify individuals we certainly can identify iwi groups. Surely in an age of modern settlements it would be appropriate to return those assets to those large iwi groupings that are now very definitely empowered to benefit their own members. That would be a much more sensible way. We could have respected the approach of the Government if it had done that. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Denese Henare agrees with this. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: The member is not supposed to do so but I heard him refer to members of my family. I know full well that members of my family want iwi not Government agencies to be empowered. I know full well that when my wife reviewed the Maori Trustee back in the 1980s that was exactly the intent she had in mind. Frankly it is inappropriate to bring family members into the debate and I would have expected Mr Shane Jones to know better if he has greater aspirations. 
I draw members’ attention to this point: National believes that the role of the Maori Trustee needs fundamental revision. National believes that it is time to have a deep think about how Maori land should be reviewed particularly the assets involved with the Maori Trustee. It is fundamentally wrong to have this approach 8 years into the Government’s term which simply perpetuates paternalism. It simply transfers assets that could have been transferred to iwi back into a centralised approach. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: The power of modernisation. A modern Minister! 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I hear the Minister say it is a modern approach. I say it is a paternalistic approach and frankly the Minister of all people should know better than that because of his particular experiences dealing with assets that belong to particular iwi. I ask whether the Minister has learnt nothing based on his commercial experience which members on that side of the House are always saying he brings to their side. All I can say based on the speech we heard him give before is that he has apparently learnt very little at all. I am not surprised that Louisa Wall will be breathing down his neck and the necks of his other colleagues because they need her to sharpen up their act. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Gone beyond Muldoonism. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Yes that is exactly the point Mr Minister. We have gone beyond Muldoonism. National believes that assets that belong to beneficiaries or to large groups of beneficiaries should be returned to those people. This is not an opportunity to expand on the paternalistic approach that this Government has. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: They are deceased! 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I say to the Minister that that is exactly what he is doing. Indeed that is one of the very questions being asked by New Zealand First members and frankly I am disappointed that based on the questions they asked they are voting for the bill. Based on the speech I heard from Pita Paraone the New Zealand First Party should be voting against the bill and giving a proper opportunity for a full and complete review of the role of the Maori Trustee. It should be a review that would respect the ownership rights of beneficiaries and large collections of beneficiaries and return assets to where they properly belong—that is not with the Crown and not with some Government agency but to the people who actually own those assets. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Maori Trustee and Maori Development Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; Independent: Copeland. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the Maori Trustee and Maori Development Amendment Bill be referred to the Maori Affairs Committee. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: First of all there is an amendment in the name of the Hon Tau Henare that we have to vote on. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
To add to the referral motion the words “and that the committee finally report to the House on or before 7 October 2008”. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to.