Whaitiri Meka: Māori Purposes Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWhaitiri Meka: Māori Purposes Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 15 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6621. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. E ngā mema o te Whare nei tēnā tātou katoa. Can I preface my contribution to today’s bill with a couple of acknowledgements. Firstly some 40 years ago an 80-year-old woman whom we all know Dame Whina Cooper left Te Hāpua to lead the historic land march under the banner of “Not another acre more”. Her legacy around protecting Māori land is for me a preface to my contribution to this debate.Her commitment 40 years ago is something all Māori members of this House need to uphold and her commitment to “Not another acre more” was not just about those non-Māori who may be threatening to take whenua but actually amongst our own I am sure. In my second contribution I want to acknowledge another Māori member who is going to join us very shortly Marama Davidson. I look forward to her expertise when she joins us here in the ranks.Can I turn to the purpose of this bill and thank the Minister for Māori Development for outlining its purpose. Labour can I put on record will support this bill to the select committee but with reservations—reservations that I hopefully will outline in my contribution. As the Minister has outlined the main aim of the bill which is an omnibus bill is to amend the Maori Purposes Act 1991 in so far as it governs the Wī Pere Trust and it also amends the Maori Trust Boards (Transitional Provisions) Order 2012.Can I add as the member for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti which the Wī Pere Trust descends from that it is a very successful whānau whenua trust. I too whakapapa to that being a descendant of Thomas Halbert who is actually the father of Wī Pere. So I acknowledge my whakapapa to this particular bill and what its intention is.However when we look at what it is trying to create—and I am going to go through the amendments one by one and offer some comments around what this bill is trying to achieve. Let me first turn to the amendments that I support which were outlined by the Minister. Point one: “allow the trust board to adopt rules relating to internal management and governance and set out the new trust board’s initial constitution …”. Clearly as a progressive future-focused organisation you want the ability to run your own affairs and to me that makes absolute sense. You cannot do that without a constitution so I have no issues with that particular provision.We move to the next one and that is to “remove unnecessary ministerial involvements in the governance of the trust;”. I think we should remove all ministerial involvements in the trust but we have certain ministerial involvements meaning there must be some good ministerial involvements we want to retain but we also say that that too does not send any alarm bells.Moving to “enable the trust to acquire and hold general land for investment purposes;”—again if you are a successful business you want the opportunity to invest be it in land or be it in other resource areas. So again there is no particular issue there. Then we move on to “allow the trust to maintain its own register of beneficial interests;”. Again it is important that those in the Wī Pere Trust at the present time must have lineage to Wī Pere. It is important that they maintain and update the register of beneficial interests and I do note that if you are a spouse or a whāngai then you currently have life interest in the trust.I have pretty much endorsed four of the amendments. Can I now turn to the ones that cause me some concerns. Let us start with the easier one: “replace the trustees with an incorporated trust board with body corporate status and limited liability;”. Why does that give me some concerns? We are talking about the management and the protection of Māori whenua—Māori whenua. So how does turning an entity into a corporate body uphold protect and maintain whenua?When I read that particular provision—which is why we are supporting it going to the select committee so that we can have submissions on that—that was definitely a concern that came out of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act reviews of which I attended all four. There was a concern for Māori landowners around turning their trust into corporate bodies. As we are seeing under this particular regime of this Government profit is often always put before people. So I want to put it on record that I have a concern with that particular amendment.I turn to the second amendment that I have a concern with and that is: “clarify the interface between the principal Act and the 1993 Act and the jurisdiction of the Māori Land Court.” It is no secret that Te Ture Whenua Maori Act which has been deferred—again from my experience of attending the four reviews throughout Ikaroa-Rāwhiti there are real concerns around what is actually wrong with the Māori Land Court. Why is this legislation removing the protection that the Māori Land Court offers?I will refer to the preamble to the current Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. In that preamble it talks about land or whenua as taonga tuku iho which means that it is to be protected and enhanced for the purpose and that we the current descendants are only in terms of custodianship or kaitiakitanga over it. In practice the preamble as used by the Māori Land Court judges references that particular section when making decisions on land. By this particular amendment which says it is clarifying “between the principal Act and the 1993 Act and the jurisdiction of the Māori Land Court.”—I again share my reservations about who is going to protect the Māori landowners which is currently done by the Māori Land Court in the preamble to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993.The third amendment which I ring-fence because it gives me the greatest concern—I want to share with you that I have spoken to a couple of beneficiaries of Wī Pere before I came to the House—is the amendment to “remove the provision deeming all land held by the trust to be Māori freehold land;”. I have been trying to paint a picture around the protection of Māori whenua. Taonga tuku iho which perhaps many in this House do not understand is our legacy as Māori MPs and as representatives of constituencies that have been losing many many acres of land and that have got—and I am sure that the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations will agree—a small pittance of what was taken. Yet here we are potentially alienating further Māori whenua.For me that particular amendment around removing the provision deeming land to be Māori whenua is a red flag. It is an absolute red flag. On this side Labour supports the bill like I said going to the Māori Affairs Committee but I like many many in my electorate and I am sure around the country will have some keen reservations around who is going to pick up that responsibility.I can hear people saying “Well that’s being a nanny State.” but trust me when you get to a certain point when it comes to Māori whenua you cannot turn back—and you cannot turn back. So I will say again that Labour with these reservations supports this bill going to the select committee. Beyond that who knows? Kia ora tātou.