Henare Tau: Māori Trustee Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHenare Tau: Māori Trustee Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 05 May 2009. Volume:654;Page:2860. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon TAU HENARE (National):Part 2 clauses 17 to 30 ranges from the dissolution of the Māori Trust Office to taxation issues. All of the clauses in Part 2 are procedural and without them we would not have the new Māori Trustee.Let us cut to the chase and talk about the real issues. I reiterate the point that some beneficiaries may like the idea of sharing their largesse or their dividends. That is cool; no one has a problem with that. The problem is when Big Brother the nanny State or the grandpa State—call him or her what you will—determines for everybody an outcome from a pool of people who hardly see anything out the Māori Trustee. I will give members a couple of examples. Why is it so easy for Bay Collection Agency and the Inland Revenue Department to find us but not for the Māori Trustee to do so? Why is it that people who have no known address and who have been missing for 8 9 or 10 years from the planet all of a sudden are found by Bay Collection Agency and the Inland Revenue Department because they want their 500 bucks? Why is it that we have a situation like that yet the Māori Trustee cannot find anybody? I do not want to personalise the issue in any way shape or form but why would we not contract the Inland Revenue Department and Bay Collection Agency to go and find these fullas?Hon Member: Pay them a commission. Get it sorted.Hon TAU HENARE: We could then hand over what is rightfully theirs.On another tack in the past 25 to 30 years assets have been handed back to the owners and the owners have got on and looked after their assets. Nobody could argue against that. One of the greatest things the Māori Trustee has been able to do is to hand back the assets so that the beneficiaries and the whānau can get on with making a living. What I have not liked over the past 25 to 30 years is the handing back of not only an asset but also a huge debt. That debt has got out of hand. There is no point in handing back something with a massive debt that takes the owners years and years to get over.All in all without the 13 or so clauses in Part 2 we would not be able to move forward. I take my hat off to the previous Minister of Māori Affairs Parekura Horomia. Let us not be disparaging. We would not have this bill if it had not been for the previous Minister sitting down with the officials and saying this was what he wanted to do. OK we can argue the toss about splitting the bill and about what was in the other part of the bill but the fact of the matter is that there is no other part of this bill. Only one bill is in front of us. It tidies matters up as the Minister has said and it parks the Māori Trustee in the position of being there for the benefit of beneficiaries in the future. Who can argue against some of the clauses that we have discussed in the Committee stage?I will make a small reference to clause 28 “No compensation for redundancy”. Let me read it out: “A transferred employee is not entitled to compensation for redundancy by reason only of the person ceasing to be an employee in the Maori Trust Office.” Am I to take it that if a person who is employed at the Māori Trust Office becomes superfluous to the needs of the Māori Trust Office he or she is not entitled by virtue of this clause to redundancy? It is an interesting little question. [Interruption] Well to some it would be bad; to some it would be good. I say it is bad. I say there must be some sort of protection there notwithstanding the side of the Chamber that I am on at the moment. It is an interesting juxtaposition.The fact of the matter is that that little clause clause 28 has been there forever and a day. Ever since the bill was promulgated by the previous Minister of Māori Affairs who just so happens to represent a party—Hon Tariana Turia: Do the unions know that?Hon Parekura Horomia: It was there the same when you were there.Hon TAU HENARE: Oh no! Just to correct things I say that I was never put in Parliament to represent the unions. I did not scab money off the unions to run my campaign. But we all know that Parekura Horomia—Moana Mackey: You were the worst union organiser ever in the history of New Zealand—sold them out.Hon TAU HENARE: Oh dear I am hurt. How sad! Let us move on. It is those members’ party that represents—or is supposed to represent—the workers.But here is the little clause and I will read it out again. It says there will be no compensation for redundancy. What a shocking state of affairs! [Interruption] Absolutely! But who put it in there? I do not blame the Māori Party or even the National Party for this clause because this bill was promulgated by the previous Minister of Māori Affairs the Hon Parekura Horomia. All night we have been thrashed about what a good job the previous Minister of Māori Affairs did. If clause 28 was such a good idea then maybe the previous Minister can take a call and just tell us where he got the little doozy of an idea of no compensation for redundancy from.What about those fullas up on the coast who work in the Gisborne office? I ask what will happen if they are made superfluous to the needs of the Māori Trust Office. Does this clause mean that they will not get any redundancy? I am just asking. It is not a question of whether I believe they should. Does the clause mean that they will get redundancy? It is a simple question which I would like the previous Minister of Māori Affairs to answer because I know that in his heart the present Minister of Māori Affairs would not wear that.Hon Tariana Turia: Must need an SOP from you.Hon TAU HENARE: Yeah maybe; let us not push things along too fast.But it is interesting to see what can come out of the procedural parts of a bill if we look hard enough. I do not know whether I am barking up the wrong tree. I am sure that somebody will be able to help me out in my understanding of clause 28. I would really like the previous Minister to help me out on that clause which relates to there being no redundancy for workers.