Mahuta NanaiaHon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): I want to make a contribution in the second reading of Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill in the House and—as many in the House would know—there are several things that Māori will be absolutely passionate about: women children and land. We have debated the issues of women and children this afternoon. On the issue of land it is I think of particular note that not since 1993 has a serious attempt to try to look at land legislation and how it affects Māori been approached.The way in which that has been done is arguable. Minister Finlayson identified the exposure draft process as a positive way of trying to float ideas for reform and to engage the public on that front. We would argue that although it might be a preferred process on paper in reality when you are dealing with a dense bill with some complexities—especially around the issue of land; Māori land in particular—the exposure draft process confused many people. They were (1) people who may not have been engaged in their own land matters or with respect they may have had a very low level of understanding in total about the Māori Land Court; and (2) the way in which the consultation around or wānanga had been promoted—again things became very feisty. There were issues around levels of participation and levels of real input and engagement into the process but also death by iteration in the legislative process. So people were kind of catching up with iterations to the bill as the wānanga were going around and as things were being taken on board. So I think for a bill of this level of density it would be arguable about whether or not the exposure draft process is useful.The Minister also identified the way in which the bill will seek to improve the participation of those disconnected non-engaged Māori land owners. As my colleague Meka Whaitiri has identified much of the reliance of getting this right will fall to the Māori Land Service. We had a very good presentation from those who were designing the process about what the intent is. I want to acknowledge that because if there is anything through this process where owners per se will derive a lot of a value it is actually in their support and assistance for their governance arrangements and decision making—the administrative aspects around succession.However Labour is very sure as to why it will not support this bill—because it is still in design mode. In fact the business case has not yet been approved by Ministers—at least not when we were briefed. Although there has been a Budget allocation for the establishment fundamental to that is the establishment of the IT platform on which information is key and is yet to be determined. So the way in which Land Information New Zealand tackles that process—again it is yet to be determined. How will the Māori Land Service be established? Will it be—and we asked the question—a part of Te Puni Kōkiri a part of the Māori Land Court or a stand-alone agency? It is still yet to be determined.Those things lead us to believe that although it is a very good idea co-designing it in situ with legislative reform is probably not the best way. In fact probably what could have been done was to set up the Māori Land Service keep aspects of the Māori Land Court chunking through as it has been and get the service up and running because many would argue in favour of this service. We are not confident that in the short time frame leading into an election the service will give Māori land owners who are supposed to benefit from the service the greatest level of assurance.The other thing that the Minister identified was the role of the Minister for Māori Development to appoint Māori Land Court judges. We understand what the convention is—in fact Parekura Horomia appointed several of the current Māori Land Court judges who are currently sitting on the bench. However what led us to think that it needed to be specified within this bill were changes to the Judicature Act. We thought that it was better to be clear and to ensure that the Minister for Māori Development has a key role in identifying the skill and capability of those going to the bench of the Māori Land Court and that that be very well set out in the legislation and very specific.The other issues that the Minister raised in regard to those outstanding matters—which we all agreed around the select committee would fundamentally improve the utilisation of Māori land—are addressing the issues of rating Māori land landlocked lands and formalising paper roads to name a few. We were informed in the Māori Affairs Committee that there is an enabling work stream that is currently in progress to try to work through these matters. The only aspect of rating that has been incorporated into the legislation is around the Mangatū decision and formalising some of those adjustments but nothing else. To give assurance that the intent of the legislation around utilisation tackles those issues at the heart of what Māori land owners themselves have raised—those are the issues and they are outside the bill. So again there is a question mark for us around those particular things.Coming back to the substantive issues around the ture whenua Māori I think my colleague has set out the reason why Labour is taking the position it is. We had to balance up whether the issue of utilisation went hand in hand with the primary responsibility to protect Māori land. Knowing the realities of what is out there in our own communities when we are talking about non-engaged or disconnected Māori land owners and the high level of intensive support required to support them to be in control of their own decisions we erred in their favour. We erred in their favour.Those Māori trusts that currently have governance arrangements that are currently working quite well—in fact they informed the select committee: We are doing quite well thank you. Leave us alone." Those ones that were doing really well actually wanted exceptions in the legislation. The only addition that we added to that was Tuarōpaki Trust. Most Māori trusts that have got a trust order were happy with what they were doing; they kind of want to just tick over in the way that they are doing.The other aspects of vulnerability we felt—especially for those Māori land owners who did not have governance arrangements—were around the participating thresholds. I am pleased Minister Flavell that you accepted the recommendations of the select committee around the second-chance provision decisions and the protections there. We believe that that was a positive aspect to what was in the bill—it gave greater confidence. Also I note the issues of ensuring that there were higher thresholds around revoking governance agreements—so you could not just do it because of a little tiff within the whānau or whatever.Anyway that said the committee spent a lot of time on the issue of succession—I think the substantial debate will come through the Committee stage—and a lot of time on the issue of whāngai and the practical ways in which that could and should be considered. Minister Flavell you have commented on that. Can I assure you that the advice that we received from your officials was top class. In fact the Māori Affairs Committee has probably recommended some of their templates for briefings to other groups that come before our committee. Actually New Plymouth District Council comes to mind. It could do well to follow the templates that we had in this instance.Finally the point that I would like to highlight is that nowhere within the bill was it contemplated in terms of identifying how and whether the Resource Management Act and the changes to the Resource Management Act and the Local Government Act could interlock with this legislation or may or may not impact on it given that there have been changes that have been happening. To some extent the select committee is responsible for that. We did not pursue that perhaps with enough vigour but I do want to identify that it may be a future issue coming up when we think about the utilisation of Māori land and the way in which changes to other principal Acts fundamentally impact on the way that this legislation is read.Hon Te Ururoa Flavell: Ka pai.Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Whew! I managed to get that all out.In closing can I thank our own Nuk Korako because he has been highly constructive on this particular bill when we have had some very heated differences of view especially towards the sharp end of the business stage of this process. He has facilitated the conversation in our select committee to a high degree. He has enabled us to pursue all the information requests so there can be no criticism on that front. In the end whether or not we agreed was a matter for our own determination. Our clerks of committee I believe served us very well in helping us to co-construct our report which we are presenting here in the second reading.So I know Mr Deputy Speaker like you know that you do the best that you can and it is what it is. Labour will not be supporting this bill any further. There are some significant thresholds that we just cannot see will benefit small Māori land owners those who have no governance arrangements or those who need the greatest support because much of the solution sits in the Māori Land Service which is still being co-designed. Kia ora."