Mahuta Nanaia: Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment Bill — In Committee00DBHOH_BILL12851.1Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMahuta Nanaia: Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment Bill — In Committee00DBHOH_BILL12851.1[Sitting date: 21 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7419. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): In taking a call on the Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment Bill I am reminded of some of the discussions around the select committee table and I am pleased that the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage is sitting in the chair because she probably would have liked to hear the nature of some of the questions that we were asking ourselves. One of the things that came up was with regard to the review that was undertaken and whether or not it was broad enough to actually address the submission about having all the Māori families represented on the board. We wondered why that had not been addressed in the previous review. Did it come up at all?There are specific questions that I have of the Minister and they are in relation to a matter that she knowswell and that is the term of office for a trustee. The point was made very well by my colleague Peeni Henare when he said that the issue of succession becomes a particular matter when we think about a legacy board such as this. Making provision for members of each of the four families as we have done in the bill Minister I would like to seek your response to some of the thoughts that emerged in the select committee. We wondered actually if a whānau identifies for the purposes of this board—a legacy board regarding the Treaty—that even after three terms of membership they want to ensure that the expertise and contribution to the board is retained would there be scope for that to happen?I say this in a very serious manner in that you need only look at many marae throughout the country and out of necessity the need to bring forward younger people to sit on the marae committee as a trustee and perhaps in positions such as this. You are actually finding a younger generation coming through. If you are going to look at succession then you would want to try to retain that type of contribution because in some instances whānau have to dive quite deep into the younger generation. So there is one question there.The other question that you might want to clarify Minister Barry for the purposes of the Committee stage is the provision for a representative of the Government and the Opposition parties to be part of the Crown group. Will the decision to choose a member of the Opposition be by convention where the largest party is approached and then a consultation is undertaken or is there another process that the Minister envisages might be useful in an MMP environment? I think that it is worth asking the question although convention might prevail—I suspect that might be the response. In an MMP environment on a legacy board such as this it is worth asking the question. I make mention that this is a legacy board for the very points raised by the member of the Green Party.This is ultimately about a trust that oversees a very important place of national significance for the country. From a functional point of view the administering of the Treaty House and the property under its purview is what the board does but it is actually so much more than that. I can remember the big debate and discussion around the level of investment to improve the Treaty House—whether or not a visitors tax should be charged whether or not tangata whenua should be charged and all of those types of issues. So it brings into play in our national place of significance all these types of real issues that challenge our sense of a spiritual homeland where this country was founded. I would say that unlike other boards this one draws particular attention.I had to ask myself how I whakapapa to the particular issue and then I was reminded in looking at the history that one of my tūpuna was an initial member of the board but not for long. He was one of the first members Te Rata Mahuta and then he passed. He was appointed in 1932 and he passed in October 1933. It did indicate to me that early on when this board was established it was envisaged that this board represent the interests of all New Zealanders and Minister Barry I can guarantee that although most of our discussions around the committee table focused on the proportional representation of those descending from the original Māori whānau that were named as well as the Pākehā whanau they really centred on the equality of that representation. Our focus was actually on the nature role and responsibility undertaken by the board. I am pleased to see even after some debate with your officials about whether or not it was in scope that we have managed to secure the inclusion of those four family members on the board. I am sure that they will make an important contribution.We were also reminded by our colleague who declared his interest in relation to this bill about some of the current day challenges I guess in terms of looking at how the board undertakes to manage its affairs going forward. Certainly in my mind it brought up a question which I pursued with officials around the lands and the estates that were transferred not being made available for Treaty settlement purposes but remaining for the original purpose and intent and spirit of the gift of the Bledisloe family. We were assured through our advisers that that would indeed be the case and I see that Minister Finlayson is nodding his head to give absolute assurance on that.In terms of modernising the legislation there were some antiquated references in the bill and you could not help but laugh. One of the references was “Pay the actual locomotion-expenses incurred and disbursed by any member of the Board …”. Well paying “reasonable costs of travel” is what it says now and that makes absolute sense. We look forward to what I understand to be a broader review that may be undertaken with the trust board in conjunction with the trust board. We look forward to hearing some of the plans that the trust board intends to undertake on our behalf as a nation and hear how it reflects our national place of significance—the Treaty House and the Treaty Grounds—to educate New Zealanders and those visitors coming here to our country. There are some must-see sights that people have in their minds when they come to New Zealand. I would like to think that Waikato is one of them but I suspect that they bypass us for Rotorua to some degree and then shoot straight up north. That said this is why this bill is so important. The role that the trust board is undertaking on our behalf to reflect the place of national significance the place where the Treaty was signed and should reside—one day—can be a positive statement for us all.Lastly Minister Barry could I urge you to take a call on those particular matters—firstly how the Opposition parties might decide on the representative. Do you have thoughts there or will it be by convention? Then in terms of the issue of succession which has been raised a couple of times by members on our side of the Chamber would there be enough scope in your mind going forward even if three terms were served and especially if the whānau members have actually identified this as an area where we are growing a succession of leadership and things like that? Could they roll their particular representativeover for another term? Kia ora tātou.