Finlayson Christopher: Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFinlayson Christopher: Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 11 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:10996. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Associate Minister for Māori Development): That was a most interesting address. I find it very difficult to believe that I am standing in this House following a member of Parliament who made a speech like that in opposition to what is a fundamental reform of Māori land law. I am very pleased to stand here today and express my admiration for the Minister for Māori Development and the phenomenal work he has done on what is a fundamental reform of Māori land law. It is incredible to have to say this in this place but there have been more than 180 statutes relating to Māori land over the last 162 years—180 statutes over the last 162 years—and unfortunately that volume of legislation reflects a tendency to tinker with this important issue rather than deal with comprehensive reform.The time for comprehensive reform is now and this Minister—this Minister—has had the courage determination and intellect to pursue the issue. And let me say this to Meka Whaitiri and members of the Labour Party: we are doing exactly what Labour said it would do if was re-elected in 2008. Its policy in 2008 was this: “to help Māori realise the economic potential of Māori land by reviewing Te Ture Whenua Māori Act.” Then in 2011 the same Labour Party said: “The most effective way to ensure the wellbeing of Māori is to grow the position of Māori in the economy.”—agreed. “Māori are no longer passive bystanders in the New Zealand economy—[they] are active participants.”—agreed. “Estimates of the size of the Māori economy range from $16b to $25b. The challenge for Labour is to grow this figure for the benefit of all Māori.” Then Labour proposed it would “review Ture Whenua land legislation to simplify the development options for multiply owned land.”So what has happened that has caused Meka Whaitiri to have some kind of road to Damascus conversion to mindless and spiteful opposition? This is exactly what Labour would have done had it won a further term in office in 2008 and I take very strong exception to the comments made by Meka Whaitiri about process. The chronology matters and so I will tell the House something about the chronology.It was the late great Api Mahuika who spoke to me about these issues between 2007 and beyond up till 2011—about the opportunities for developing land governed by Te Ture Whenua. So when I became the Associate Minister of Māori Affairs to Pita Sharples I got together a group of experts to look at the particular issue: Toko Kāpea from Ngāti Apa Matanuku Mahuika from Ngati Porou Dion Tuuta from Ngāti Mutunga and I particularly asked Dame Patsy Reddy whether she would look at it because she had come across the issue in the course of working for me as a Treaty negotiator.Everyone acknowledged that there were issues that needed to be addressed and they went around the country had many hui and came up with the report. That report was consulted on a further consultation was undertaken throughout 2013-14 and in 2015 I took the most unusual step as Attorney-General of allowing an exposure draft to be released. The exposure draft was the subject of consultation and then there were numerous other exposure drafts—not one exposure draft but a number of exposure drafts.There has been a glut of consultation on this issue people have been consulted and complaints about process are pathetic and they are wrong. I say to the New Zealand First member who intimated that he would be opposing the legislation at this stage whatever that means—a lazy approach to analysing the legislation—that it was his deputy leader who took me around the Wairarapa pointing out urupā to which it was impossible to get access and pointing out to me areas on the coastline of the Wairarapa where there had been cases to the Māori Land Court and there had been delays and expense in terms of the issues of landlocked land and I said to him that these are issues that need to be addressed.So we are biting the bullet and we are not tinkering with the legislation and providing yet another amendment. We are looking fundamentally at the legislation and at the very heart of it is the importance of land. I resent being told that this is some kind of Jesuitical plan to relieve Māori of their land. For 7½ years as the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations I have returned more land to Māori than any other Minister because I am utterly committed to the issue of restoring iwi to their rightful place and the preservation of land and respect for land which culminated in the 1975 Māori Land March is a fundamental issue.Peeni Henare: Then it was given straight to the Department of Conservation.Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I have done a lot in the far north—far more than that member has ever done. He is very happy to talk about things but in this place you are judged not by fancy talk; you are judged by actions.Peeni Henare: How did it go with Ngāti Kahu?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: We will get there with Ngāti Kahu. We will get there and we will even get there with Ngāpuhi because we are utterly determined to succeed. We are not going to be a “Sideline Sam” simply criticising; we are actually involved in changing people’s opportunities and improving the lot of iwi so that is what this issue is about. To suggest that somehow we are interested in undermining the whenua is simply ridiculous. What we are wanting to do is provide mechanisms for better development of land. That is at the heart of this reform.There is another suggestion that somehow we are wanting to undermine the Māori Land Court which is nonsense. We are wanting to make the court more effective and relieve the court of a whole lot of administrative burdens that could be done through a Māori Land Service and leave the courts to focus on the judicial function. There is nothing novel in any of this. Exactly those reforms occurred in the High Court in the early 1980s relieving the judges of the need to be responsible for every procedural step and letting them concentrate on judicial determination of disputes once they reached the courts and leaving the parties to sort out a lot of things for themselves.The current Te Ture Whenua Maori Act was important because of its focus on land retention. It served an important purpose. But its over-reliance on oversight by the court has perpetuated a negative and unjustified perception that those Māori landowners who become actively involved with their land somehow cannot be trusted. And it has never addressed—it has never addressed—the fundamental policy issue that the law should recognise and provide for the mana and the tino rangatiratanga of Māori in relation to their lands rather than undermine those concepts.So this is a very important reform. I am pleased that it—hopefully; assuming the votes go through—goes to the Māori Affairs Committee because these are very important issues that we need to debate. This reform has been a long time coming. The process has been impeccable. There has been a glut of consultation. There are major issues that need to be looked at for the benefit of the Māori economy and I must say I am so very disappointed that whereas in 2008 and 2011 Labour was prepared to address this issue the Labour Party in 2016 is adopting what can only be called a spiteful and pitiful approach to this legislation.