Ririnui Mita: Māori Trustee Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRirinui Mita: Māori Trustee Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 05 May 2009. Volume:654;Page:2855. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon MITA RIRINUI (Labour):Once again I take a call on Part 1 of the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill. I am not sure whether I am amused or bemused by the statements of the previous speaker David Bennett but I recall that earlier in the Committee stage of this bill he took a call also. His speech was so hilarious—for want of other words—that the member for Hauraki-Waikato the Hon Nanaia Mahuta had to stand up in the Chamber and ask if he had been drinking water out of the Waikato River because he was well off track. I find that his contribution to this particular debate is no different. Although the member espouses considerable understanding of various clauses within Part 1 he has no understanding at all of the dynamics of Māori land ownership. If he had been listening to the debate so far he would have understood—as has been commented by a number of people who have stood in the Chamber to speak to Part 1—that it is not as straightforward as he seems to think. He thinks that he can walk into the Chamber get to his feet take a glimpse of the bill and have a complete understanding of Māori land issues. Mate I have never seen so much arrogance in my life. That was the most paternalistic speech I have heard in the time that I have been in this Chamber.David Bennett: I raise a point of order Mr Chair. I require the speaker to withdraw and apologise for that last comment.Hon MITA RIRINUI: Mr Chair which comment in particular does the member want me to withdraw?David Bennett: I do not have to repeat the comment. You know.Hon MITA RIRINUI: He said that “You know.” Mr Chair so I am asking you whether you know.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I was talking to the Clerk at the time so I am a little bit at sea here. Offence has been taken. I take it that Mr Bennett is serious about this and that it is a genuine point of order. If that is the case I accept his word. I ask the member to withdraw.Hon MITA RIRINUI: I withdraw in the interests of time but it would have been interesting to hear his clarification—Chris Tremain: I raise a point of order Mr Chair. The member was asked to withdraw and apologise. He did not need to add on the words: “in the interests of time”. Can the member just do what he was asked to do?The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): The point of order is well made. The member will simply withdraw and continue with the speech and will not refer to the matter again.Hon MITA RIRINUI: Thank you Mr Chair. I said that I found much of the previous speaker’s comments and the comments of a number of speakers in the Chamber this afternoon quite paternalistic.There is no dispute around the need for the Māori Trustee to become a stand-alone organisation. There is no dispute that the legislation needs to reflect very clearly the roles and responsibilities of the Māori Trustee including the Māori Trustee’s appointment and—if it ever comes about—dismissal. There is no dispute that the legislation needs to include robust financial management systems and clarification around the investment of funds from out of the common fund and where the return on those investments must go. The change in that particular area is of course that returns will not go into the general purpose funds but back into the common fund. As mentioned in the Chamber many times through this debate there is support for that particular approach.As I said earlier there seems to be a total lack of understanding of the complexities around Māori land ownership and Māori land tenure and the difficulties the Māori Trustee will face in identifying beneficiaries. I believe that a previous speaker referred to a particular case in Te Tai Tonga—in Te Wai Pounamu—of a particular family that has a sizable amount of money already accumulated in the Māori Trust Office. Kelvin Davis Parekura Horomia and I—and I am sure many other Māori members around the House—either are beneficiaries of lands held by the Māori Trustee or know someone who is. There are reasons why many do not come forward as I said previously. Those reasons are that they are no longer with us—Paul Quinn: They don’t know it exists!Hon MITA RIRINUI:—they do not know it exists or they are basically just not interested enough in their family’s affairs to inquire into the possibility of funds being held on their behalf.The Māori Trustee has made some tremendous steps forward over a number of years. I am familiar with cases where the Māori Trustee has actually held shares in particular blocks around the country and those shares have been handed back to the governing authority of those estates. I can recall very recently the encouragement of the then Minister of Māori Affairs Parekura Horomia in interests in Tuhua Island—or Mayor Island as it is commonly known—in the Bay of Plenty just off the coast of Tauranga. It is a very very popular spot. In years gone by it was frequented by a lot of recreational fishers. Those shares were handed back to the Tuhua Trust Board. Now the board holds those shares on behalf of all the beneficiaries with interest in Tuhua Island. So although we might be making changes to the role of the Māori Trustee I hope that that particular important function carried out by the Māori Trustee remains in place for a long period to come.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 14 in the name of the Hon Dr Pita Sharples to Part 1 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 16 in the name of the Hon Dr Pita Sharples to Part 1 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 17 in the name of the Hon Dr Pita Sharples to Part 1 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Part 1 as amended agreed to.