Gilmore Aaron: Māori Trustee Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGilmore Aaron: Māori Trustee Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 05 May 2009. Volume:654;Page:2844. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]AARON GILMORE (National):I am honoured to stand up and talk more on the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill. I spoke in the earlier part of the Committee stage of the bill. We are now talking about Part 1 and I want to focus on one particular clause which I think a number of members have spoken about which is clause 11. Clause 11 amends a number of sections in the original Māori Trustee Act and talks particularly about the issue around distributable income and about who is entitled to income and who is not. In the area I am from in the South Island we have talked about the $35 million fund that was going to be set up in a statutory corporation for use for Māori development. But I want to talk about some of the people whose money that would have been. Clause 11 protects that in many ways. Many people who are listed are owed money by the Māori Trustee. In particular I want to talk about one family: the Johnson family. The Johnson family comprises six individuals on the Te Wai Pounamu register. They are entitled to about $38000. That is $38000 that that family would not have received had this bill passed in its earlier form as the former Minister of Māori Affairs proposed it. In particular Mr Richard Johnson was entitled to $28747.35. That is $28747.35 that would have gone had this bill been done in a different way. Clause 11 is a very important clause and I think it is important that we make a good account. It allows the ability to give back the income earned off this land which the previous speaker spoke about to those people like Richard Johnson and his family—his $28747.35.Another important part of this bill in particular—and the previous speaker spoke about this—is clause 12 and the repeal of section 41 of the Māori Trustee Act. Clause 12 which repeals section 41 takes away an enormous debt that existed to the trustee from the Minister of Finance. Again that means that Richard Johnson and many others in a similar position would be entitled to make sure he and the rest of his family—including John Johnson Mary Johnson and Moira Johnson—got the $28747.35. In fact a number of families are entitled to many more funds than the Johnson family is and one of the good things about this bill is that it will make sure that that money is protected and that mechanisms of governance are put in place to ensure that these families who are in need and are entitled to this money get it in time. It might be that the Māori Trustee sets up a mechanism just like the Inland Revenue Department has done for people to claim refunds and promotes in a stronger fashion how to get this money back to their families so they can spend it on the things they think are necessarily not that some bureaucrat in Wellington thinks are necessary.Another important aspect of this bill—as has been touched on by many other speakers—is around the setting up of the independence of the Māori Trustee. That is an important aspect that has not really been talked about in this Committee stage. One of the roles of the Māori Trustee is administering a large number of Māori scholarships—in particular one that is in the name of Sir Apirana Ngata. He is one of the most famous former members of Parliament who has been honoured in a special way. That scholarship is one that I must admit I wish I knew about when I was at university. It is something I would have applied for but I did not know it existed. Te Puni Kōkiri has had too much oversight of the Māori Trustee. In particular that means that a scholarship in the name of one of our greatest New Zealanders has been hidden a bit behind the skirts of that organisation. I do not think that is really wise.The other things that have been spoken about this bill—Hon Parekura Horomia: Te Puni Kōkiri’s a good ministry.AARON GILMORE: Apparently so.The other big issues that exist in this bill that have been talked about include worries around the appointment of the Māori Trustee and the removal of the Māori Trustee if issues arise. If one looks at the bill one sees there are many mechanisms should the Māori Trustee need to be replaced for impropriety. There are many mechanisms to deal with that situation. They are very clear that the trustee can be removed should the Minister decide to do so. The Māori Trustee is actually appointed for a period of time. It is not a job for life in many ways. I think that is important as well.The other good thing about this bill is that it actually requires disclosure. Disclosure from the Māori Trustee has been a problem for some of these beneficiaries like Mr Richard Johnson with his $28747.35. I am sure Mr Johnson—if he is out there listening today—will be ecstatic to know that he is entitled to $28747.35. I think one of the problems that existed with the trustee is the ability to disclose how the money flows through who is entitled to it and where it actually is. One of the important things that exists here is the vision values and mission of the Māori Trustee—as outlined in its annual report—which are to provide a productive and sustainable framework for the development and utilisation of Māori resources that the Māori Trustee administers. That sounds pretty good. The previous speaker stood up and said that that was the idea around his statutory corporation and the use of funds for that statutory corporation. That already exists as the vision of the current Māori Trustee. We have to talk about how we use that $39 million in assets and funds for the best use of those people who are entitled to that money including the Richard Johnsons of the world.Previous speakers have spoken about the 111000 hectares of land. Yes it is problematic and yes this land is highly unlikely ever to be sold which is one of the reasons why the protective provisions around Part 1 exist: to make sure that the land can be retained returns can be earned there are funds in terms of management fees there is no debt issue because of the repeal of section 41 and people like Mr Richard Johnson can actually receive the funds they deserve.Some of the other particular issues that exist here are the economies of scale and the uncertainty around some little things particularly around the management fee. Part 1 as it has been put forward here allows some changes around the management fee and gives more certainty and surety for the deduction of the management fee which can be given back to the recipients like Mr Richard Johnson and the rest of his family.The other aspect that has some issues is around the confusion that existed between Te Puni Kōkiri and the Māori Trustee—where the roles and entitlements actually start and stop for some of these things. Whose job has it been to promote whether Mr Richard Johnson is entitled to $28747.35 and where does Te Puni Kōkiri’s role start and finish? Part 1 outlines in a clearer fashion the vision values and mission of the Māori Trustee and how it will be much clearer in terms of its governance. I think that is a good step and it is wonderful for Mr Richard Johnson and other families of the world. If we can get more of these funds like the amounts for the Johnson family and many others back to those families with the Māori Trustee as it will function under this bill then it will be a neat thing for them to be able to use.In fact I am actually shocked that more members of this Committee are not standing up and talking about the Mr Richard Johnsons of this world and making sure they are aware of their entitlements. If those people are not listening then maybe members who know them can pass on the fact that the Māori Trustee is set up to make sure these people get what they are entitled to. As the previous speaker said some of these families may be greatly in need particularly in these tough economic circumstances and if we can get some of the money they are entitled to back to them so they can use it for their own families to do what they want to do for their own homes or whatever then they will have the choice to spend their funds in the way they wish. I think that would be a good step and particularly so in the economic times we have today.I want to touch on just one more thing. One of the key things about the change in the $52 million debt is that the debt treated as a one-off of course; it means that it can never happen again. One of the important things in relation to governance under Part 1 is to make sure that the Māori Trustee is managed in a certain way so as to ensure that the Māori Trustee does not incur such a large debt owed back to the Crown and that $52 million does not get racked up again. To have a $52 million debt and $39 million in assets and funds means that the Māori Trustee is in negative equity which is not good for Mr Richard Johnson and the other people who might not get their funds given the uncertainty around the equity position of the Māori Trustee.I think this bill is non-controversial. The only issue that has been controversial has been the $35 million statutory corporation that was originally proposed by the previous Government. The previous speaker is right: we as a new Government are happy to run with this bill because with the removal of that proposal it is a good piece of legislation and it will be good for Mr Richard Johnson and the other people out there who are entitled to some of the funds that exist in there. In the main the Māori Trustee can deliver what it can do in education land management and other things in terms of getting money back to those people who deserve it the most. There is nothing wrong with that. We have heard discussion from some members on the other side about who is responsible for how good this is and who is not. But I think we should all be focused on how we get the money held by the Māori Trustee back in the most efficient way to the Johnson family and to the other people who are entitled to funds that currently exist rather than thinking about how we can best spend the $35 million. The Johnson family is entitled to its $37000 or $38000 and Mr Johnson himself is entitled to his $28000. We should be focusing on how we get the Māori Trustee to operate in the best way and to maximise returns. Thank you.