Finlayson Christopher: Māori Purposes Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFinlayson Christopher: Māori Purposes Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 15 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6622. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): I just want to take a brief call to discuss the possible application of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 to this legislation so I am doing it as Attorney-General. Normally the obligation of the Attorney-General is to produce a section 7 report if an issue arises but I have thought long and hard about the matter I want to discuss and have concluded that the Bill of Rights Act does not apply. But because it is an important issue I thought I would take a brief call to highlight it for members of the select committee who in due course will be looking at the bill if it goes there.As has been stated by the Minister for Māori Development and the previous speaker Meka Whaitiri the bill is going to amend certain provisions of the Maori Purposes Act 1991 relating to the Wī Pere Trust. One aspect—and the aspect of the bill that caused me to think long and hard—was the issue of possible discrimination on the grounds of family status. As things stand under the Maori Purposes Act 1991 beneficiaries of the trust are treated differently according to whether they are lineal descendants of Wī Pere or descendants as a result of adoption. Those related by blood may inherit a parent’s beneficial interest in the trust and in turn pass that interest to their own children. Those related as a spouse or by adoption inherit only a life interest which by definition cannot be passed on to their children. So the relevant part of the bill which is Part 3 is introduced by clause 9 of the bill—and I refer honourable members to the proposed new sections 23 24 and 25.Clause 9 inserts a new section 21 which prohibits the disposal of any beneficial interests in the trust property other than in accordance with the new sections to which I have referred: the new section 23 the disposal by will; the new section 24 which deals with intestate; and the new section 25 which deals with the issue of gifts. The effect of the bill will be that a beneficiary may dispose of his or her beneficial interest—whether by will intestate or gift—only to a lineal descendant of Wī Pere. The phrase “lineal descendant” is defined in the bill as “a person who is a direct descendant … by blood” and so the beneficiary’s spouse child or descendant if not the lineal descendant is eligible to succeed only to the life interest. So I needed to give some thought as to whether the bill discriminated on a prohibited ground and I must say that I spent quite some time thinking about the issue because as a general principle treating adopted children differently from non-adoptees gives rise to a prima facie family status discrimination issue.However in the particular context of the bill I consider that the different treatment was justified and not inconsistent with section 19 of the Bill of Rights Act. In forming that conclusion I had regard to the essentially private character of the trust. The trust’s succession arrangements are very long standing as the previous speaker said and are the means by which the trust seeks to preserve its tikanga. Were the trust to be created by deed today it would probably contain exactly the same provisions and be consistent with the Human Rights Act and the Bill of Rights. The fact that the terms of the trust are set out in legislation necessarily engages the Bill of Rights Act because legislation is an act of the legislative branch but having thought long and hard about it in my view this does not on balance obscure the fact that in substance the trust was and remains essentially a private one.So I thought I would bring that issue to the attention of the House. It is a very important issue. In a sense I am giving what could be called not a section 7 report but it is a very important issue and I want the House to know that as Attorney-General I gave the matter a lot of thought. In my opinion the bill exemplifies the difficulties in reckoning with matters of indigeneity and ethnic identity in legislation. Generally it is preferable that iwi hapū and whānau determine their own membership in accordance with tikanga Māori and that the State not impose a non-Māori world view. Where legislation is used to define rights as between or within various iwi hapū or whānau such as through Treaty settlements any apparent inconsistencies with fundamental human rights have to be shown to be reasonable and justified. I believe they are in this instance for the reasons that I have endeavoured to explain to the House. If people are interested I can advise them that there is a comprehensive coverage of this point by me that is on the Ministry of Justice website in an opinion dated 27 July 2015.With those brief comments on only one aspect of the bill I commend the bill to the House.