Paraone PitaPITA PARAONE (NZ First): Tēnā koe Mr Deputy Speaker tēnā anō tātou e noho nei i roto i Te Whare i te pō nei.[Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker and acknowledgments to us once again seated here in the House this evening.]I want to make a contribution to this debate. I do not necessarily agree with all those who have preceded me in making a contribution to this debate but rather to say that this is a very big piece of legislation and I think it would be one of the biggest volumes in terms of Māori land law. I want to use the analogy of a car that has a puncture. Rather than just fixing the puncture it seems to me that the Government is replacing the whole car. That used to be the modus operandi in making amendments to legislation particularly Māori legislation when it required amendment. This bill as we are all led to believe is to address the issue of underutilised undeveloped Māori land. The reason for this is that a lot of the land is landlocked and this bill is intended to address that problem. Can I suggest to members that this bill will not necessarily address that issue. As the previous speaker alluded the major problem is access to financial resources by Māori land owners to put into the utilisation of their land. The other issue is that much of the land that we are talking about is landlocked. Although the bill might make reference to that it certainly does not address that issue.This bill has been around for a while in terms of the genesis of it. The Māori Affairs Committee of which I can gladly say I am a member recommended that the bill should be passed into law with some amendments given that throughout the various consultation processes a Waitangi Tribunal hearing and via the submissions we received there has clearly been a high degree of apprehension and opposition to this bill. Concerns generally are that the bill's purpose is unclear it is too complex it could further alienate land from Māori owners and it does not address more important issues such as the high rateable values of Māori land. There is a view that this bill is largely focused on reforming and reducing the role of the Māori Land Court. Speakers have alluded to the Māori Land Service which intends to take much of the work that the Māori Land Court is already doing now. I refer to the analogy that I used about a car and its puncture—all that needed to be done I believe was that the services intended by the proposed Māori Land Service could have been adopted and arranged for within the present Māori Land Court system. In fact when I worked for the Māori Land Court we used to have a division called the Māori land title improvement section and it was its job to arrange for lands to be amalgamated and to be utilised for land development. That is not to say that it was perfect but it certainly addressed the issue of land utilisation. I think that the present bill over-exaggerates the need for the Māori Land Service although I can understand that one of the issues confronting the use of Māori land is the whereabouts of many of the shareholders apart from the fragmentation as well. But that again is part of tikanga Māori. Everybody is entitled to succeed to their tūpuna's—or to their parents'—land interests so you will end up getting the fragmentation that we talk about. Although it is not ideal at least Māori are exercising tikanga Māori. They are able to do that presently through the Māori Land Court and so therefore the intention to establish the new Māori Land Service is I think not necessary in the terms that people would like us to believe. My party—we share in the minority view that has been prepared. If people look at the report it articulates some of the concerns that certainly the New Zealand First Party has in relation to this bill. I want to make reference to one submission which was made by the Māori Women's Welfare League. I quote from our minority view: Despite the Review Panel that gave rise to this bill being tasked with assessing the extent to which the regulatory environment is enabling or inhibiting the achievement of Māori land owner aspirations the Panel chose to develop recommendations based on 'what should the law look like' rather than 'what is wrong with the current law and how should it be fixed.' " I do not think it is pure coincidence that the members of the panel at that time are now recognised as part of the corporate world. So what we have ended up with is really an extension of what they would like to have seen in their capacity as corporate warriors so to speak. If you look at some of the thresholds in terms of participating ownership you can see that what has been suggested is a result of the frustration that they have had in terms of wanting to advance the development of the particular interests that they hold. The bill provides the opportunity for the establishment of governance structures and I want to just add to the comments made by the previous speaker which was that there are some present Māori entities that are doing very well under the present bill. They asked the question "Why the change?" but I think for us in New Zealand First our real concern is the high level of apprehension that was expressed not only by some submitters but by those who did not make submissions. The fact that they did not make submissions is not because they were not interested but rather it was out of frustration—frustration at the concerns that they had which are that this bill is sort of alienating them from participation in determining the future of their land interests. I anticipate that during the Committee stage many of the concerns that speakers have expressed so far will be articulated during that process. Suffice it to say New Zealand First will not be supporting this bill."