Henare PeeniTE TURE WHENUA MĀORI BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 3 May.Part 3 Ownership interests in Māori freehold land (continued)PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): It seems like so long ago that we were actually debating this particular bill as the Committee of the whole House.Pita Paraone: Why the hurry?PEENI HENARE: That is a relevant question. Why the hurry and it is clear then given the motion put on the floor by my colleague here denied by the Minister sitting on the other side who knew nothing about the particular request—given some of the intense debate that took place over Parts 1 and 2. To Part 3 clause 48: the defining class of collective owners. I just have some questions and a bit of clarification is sought from the Minister in the chair Te Ururoa Flavell on this particular matter. Conversion to collective ownership of Māori freehold land" clause 48(3) says: "The decision must define the class of collective owners in 1 of the following ways:". Clause 48(3)(a) is very straightforward: "as the named persons who immediately before conversion were the living owners of the land …"—that is straightforward to me. But clause 48(3)(b): "as named persons who are associated with the land in accordance with tikanga Māori and their descendants as long as the class also includes every person described in paragraph (a):"—as I mentioned paragraph (a) is very straightforward to me.So the question to the Minister in the chair is: does he or do his advisers see any issues with this particular clause 48(3)(b) in so far as we have mentioned this word—I have mentioned this word in the Chamber many times on this issue around the fragmentation—tīmokamokatanga so the fragmentation of particular shares in relation to an association "with the land in accordance with tikanga Māori." Those may not necessarily come from those who were the original owners or the ancestors mentioned as collective owners of Māori freehold land but by way of tikanga in reference to ahi kā actually can be named according to this—and this is just my understanding of it and I ask for some clarification from the Minister in the chair around the particular ownership around that with regard to "named persons who are associated with the land in accordance with tikanga Māori." once again the reference being towards the tikanga of ahi kā.The next part I want to raise is in Part 3 clause 49 "Effect of conversion to collective ownership". Once again this is a question of seeking clarification. Clause 39(3) says: "If any beneficial interests in the parcel were held under a whānau trust and the trust has no other trust property the trust is terminated on the date on which the beneficial ownership is vested in the class of collective owners." I know as a Māori land administrator in the past that many whānau have actually sought to collect their shares together to put them into whānau trusts. In fact if you read the list of beneficiaries just for the Ngati Hine Forestry Trust for example there are plenty of examples in there around whānau who have decided that fragmentation of their particular shares is actually devaluing the shares if you like. So they did what they call whakatōpū; they brought it together under a trust. Is this particular regime saying then that once the conversion is completed those trusts are no longer relevant that they become void in this discussion? Because if that is the case there are obviously concerns that we have—and I have even as a descendant of some of those trusts; a beneficiary of some of those trusts—around the compliance for whānau.What does that mean? We know having set up those trusts that the compliance issues involved with lawyers with courts and with simply organising whānau to get together to discuss this particular issue have proven to be quite difficult. So the question here is: once this conversion happens and those trusts become no longer relevant in the discussion of the collective ownership of Māori freehold land then what does that mean for the whānau? What does that mean for compliance issues for that whānau to become relevant in the discussion of collective ownership of Māori freehold land and what does that mean for them? But also more importantly as a collective in the entire ownership of the Māori freehold land—what are the implications for them in respect of that? Is it a case of the whānau having to organise themselves to get their stuff sorted or is it a case of the actual entity that is put in place to administer this land—is it their responsibility to make sure that they engage whānau in a fair process to make sure that their interests are still represented given the fact that whānau had already come together to make sure that they were able to protect those parcels of land? So those are two questions I have for the floor and for the Minister in the chair.I want to come now to Part 3 clause 51 under the title "How owners of Māori freehold land make decisions". Clause 51 is "Decisions by specified majority of owners of Māori freehold land" and my concern here is around the weighting of shares given to Māori land owners. The concern there is for example when the Ngati Hine Forestry Trust in the 1970s and 80s allowed whānau to put their land into trusts to make sure that it was administered for the benefit of all we know that for many whānau who put large vast amounts of land into that particular trust the weighting of shares given to them was less than the actual value of the land that was committed to the trust for administration. That might sound like perhaps there is an error in the formula but what we have seen over 30 or 40 years of administration in that trust is that I guess it is a failed democracy if you like. What we see are constant situations of large shareholders regardless of the original landholding that went into the trust actually being the tail that is wagging the dog—being the tail that is wagging the dog. That is of huge concern for many shareholders. For some who did not quite get the time to put their particular shares into a trust to have a stronger voice in the administration of that particular land—that is a concern for them. It is also a concern for those who failed to do that and have seen the fragmentation of their shares. So that question once again is around the decisions of a specified majority of owners of Māori freehold land and the weighting formula that was I feel discriminatory many years ago through the 1970s and 80s and into the 90s and even in more recent times and that does not give a fair weighting to actually the contribution that they have made by way of land and resource to the administration of the trust. So those are the three questions I have for now on this particular part. I will take my seat. Tēnā koe e Te Heamana."