Tirikatene RinoRINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): I am pleased to make a contribution on Part 1 of this very important bill. I would like to acknowledge Minister Te Ururoa Flavell for his contribution but I guess what I took from that contribution is just how out of depth this Minister is in terms of ushering in this Frankenstein piece of legislation—way out of his depth—because this bill is a train wreck. It is a train wreck that has been—Marama Fox: Part 1.RINO TIRIKATENE: Absolutely and I am getting to Part 1 but it is a train wreck. The Minister talked about the research that underpinned it. Well that research was so flawed it was laughable. The research said that by overhauling the Māori land legislation that would create an $8 billion boon for the New Zealand economy—Rt Hon Winston Peters: How much?RINO TIRIKATENE: —and the Māori economy—$8 billion. And then—hello—2 years later after a couple of working groups and a few huis they had to tone it down a bit. They had to tone it down a bit and say Oh it's only $3.5 billion." and even then they were not sure. Highly qualified conclusions by these highly paid so-called consultants at all these flash accountancy firms. The problem with this bill is that it has morphed into a Frankenstein bill because it has been passed on from Minister Finlayson and Minister Sharples to Minister Flavell. Goodness knows we have had working groups and huis and consultation and—how many? Sixteen exposure drafts—16 drafts.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Really? RINO TIRIKATENE: Absolutely. And we are not at the end of it yet because there was a 370-page bill and then 2 weeks ago lo and behold the Minister dumped another 400-page Supplementary Order Paper. But wait there is more—then he dumped about another four Supplementary Order Papers amending the earlier Supplementary Order Paper. So the Minister is way out of his depth. He has created a monstrous piece of legislation and that is why—I am getting to Part 1—this is a monstrous taniwha piece of legislation. If we go to Part 1 I will just give you an example. Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is not normal for a Minister to vacate the chair stay in the Chamber and put a pretender in there. That is what has happened for the last minute and a half and whilst he was doing that—sadly you were talking to your staff so it was not quite your fault but the person to your right knows full well that that is wrong. We are not living in some medieval society where you behave as you please I say for the benefit of the Blackstone sitting in the chair now—yes the Blackstone of the antipodean world. The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I think the point of order is—Rt Hon Winston Peters: You get my point don't you?The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Yes—and I am on my feet—and we have moved from a point of order into a little bit of stand-up. The rule of course is that a member cannot move his position in the House to better barrack or barrack better so I understand the problem has now disappeared. We will carry on.Hon Christopher Finlayson: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I take offence at being called the Blackstone of the Antipodes. As the right honourable member knows full well because he has addressed me in this way before I am the Lord Denning of the Antipodes.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Well I take offence at the member thinking that the right honourable member was referring to him. I took it as a compliment because I thought he was referring to me.RINO TIRIKATENE: So here we have this monstrous taniwha Frankenstein piece of legislation that has been created. Referring to Part 1 when we talk about unlocking economic potential the only economic boon that will occur from this piece of legislation is with the lawyers and one just needs to look at Part 1—one just needs to look at Part 1. It is just—honestly talking about principles—Hon Ruth Dyson: It makes you speechless.RINO TIRIKATENE: —the purpose and principles—it does make one speechless. Seriously we are wiping aside 30 years of jurisprudence case law that has been established under a very sound piece of the legislation Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 which took 20 years—20 years—of consultation and hui to put in place. We are wiping that aside with this monstrous monstrosity of a bill. We are wiping all of that aside with totally new definitions—totally new definitions. By way of example the references to Te Tiriti o Waitangi—well we have had 30 years' jurisprudence about the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Why could that not be put in? Instead we are going to performing powers and duties that recognise the Treaty of Waitangi. The principles the purpose—it is an absolute mess but it is great for lawyers. It is absolutely great for lawyers because there are many people with Māori land interests now who will be scratching their heads and trying to make sense of this monstrous piece of a bill and it need not be that way. The problem with this bill—it need not have been this way—has been right from the get-go in the definition of the problem. You see what can be achieved could have been a range of amendments to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. There was no need for the Minister to think "OK we are going to wipe this 1993 Act aside and we are going to create this whole new Act that will unlock an $8 billion boon.". So that was fatally flawed right from the get-go. With what we have here I feel for the officials because they have been tirelessly working on this monstrosity—Frankenstein—of a bill and it is just getting uglier and uglier and now we have come to the point—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Order! I gave the member a second call hoping he would move to new material.RINO TIRIKATENE: OK. But by way of another example if we look at the relationship between the English version and the Māori version when it comes to principles and purpose it says that the Māori definitions will prevail but there are so many vagaries and uncertainties around which version takes precedent if they are treated equally or whether one is superior even if there are no points of conflict between the two. It is just poor drafting which is creating a whole lot of uncertainty. That is why iwi Māori are so fed up and concerned with what has been happening with the creation of this bill. They can see that it need not go this far—it need not go this far. Sure we want to improve engagement with owners and sure we want to improve governance and make it a bit easier to get things done on Māori land but you do not need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Another example is the use of these new terms. We have got a whole host of customary Māori terms defined Māori terms and totally new terms that I have never heard of before and all of them have been thrown into this mishmash in the interpretation within Part 1—and it is going to take years. It is going to take years of court cases and court actions going to the High Court to actually establish what it all means and I think that is doing our whānau and doing the motu an injustice. It is doing them an injustice because yes we wanted to improve on our governance our structures and our engagement with owners but we do not need to totally wipe aside 30-plus years of really important case law on that. The final point that I would like to make is that this bill is not—sure we want to empower the owners. But the real issue with Māori land—which is why it was totally flawed—is that over 100000 blocks of Māori land are under 1 hectare. You know we are talking about—you cannot prescribe by putting in place a law that says magic will happen when you are dealing with less than 1 hectare of a mud-pool or a hillside or a marginal piece of land on the coast. We need to be realistic. Sure there have been issues with Māori land being underutilised but the fact of the matter is a lot of that has to do with a lack of access to capital. The fact that the raw land itself is marginal and the fact that it is not a bankable proposition whatever the owner's wawata or dreams may be means they cannot actually see them to fruition. So those issues will still remain. The legislation can be put in place but those issues will not change. You are not going to change a mud-pool and turn it into a geothermal powerhouse. There have been so many successes that have occurred under the 1993 Act that it was not really that bad. Sure it might have needed some tweaks but fundamentally this bill has just morphed way out of control. It is unnecessary. The definitions and the new terms that have been inserted are going to create litigation for years and I think Minister Flavell just demonstrated how out of his depth he is. That is a real shame because unfortunately this train wreck has gotten way out of control and he cannot control it. But we are doing our best to hopefully bring it back into focus. Kia ora tātou."