Mahuta NanaiaHon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): I want to speak to the second part of this bill for Labour and endorse principally the changes that were made as a result of some strong petitions and submissions to Parliament and also the advocacy of the local member Meka Whaitiri which resulted in a different conversation around the Māori Affairs Committee table. It went like this: basically beneficiaries of the Wī Pere Trust were somewhat sceptical about the moves to modernise governance without enough input from the grassroots. I think that if we were to simply accept the changes that were being proposed in the bill without a real conversation around the content of the submissions from local people—beneficiaries of the Wī Pere Trust—we would not have got the proposed changes that the select committee has made or an additional Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) put forward by my colleague Meka Whaitiri. So in short I want to comment on the changes that were substantially agreed to by the select committee outline the reasons for those and then come back if I have time to the SOP proposed by my colleague. We did consider at length the new constitution that was in the bill and that it was very important to ensure that that constitution would be reviewed. The reason for that was that again in order to build confidence with beneficiaries—shareholders of the Wī Pere Trust—it would be only right that a period of review would allow for input on whether or not the constitution was achieving its intended objectives. So you will see in new schedule 1 clause 15 a review period after 5 years of this legislation being in operation. We have made a suggestion in new schedule 1 clause 15 that that be provided for. What that will enable is a legitimate focus on the constitution as it was operating whether it can be better and then a blueprint to see how those amendments could be taken forward so recommended changes can be advanced through this process. That was achieved again on the advocacy of the local member and the strength of the submissions that came through. Also another amendment that we were very keen to advance which is contained in schedule 1 appendix 4 clause 2.11 is the ability of shareholders to get together form a collective and put forward by special resolution a change to the constitution. This is really important because there were a lot of I think dismissive comments that were made at the leadership level around various views coming through from beneficiaries and shareholders. So if those beneficiaries can get together form a collective and form within their view a crucial change that will help advance the interests of—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chamber for the dinner break. The House will resume at 7.30 p.m.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Kia ora mai tātou. Tēnā tātou katoa. Members when we adjourned for the dinner break we were debating the Māori Purposes Bill and the Hon Nanaia Mahuta had 6 months—6 months—6 minutes and 30 seconds remaining to speak.Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: What a gift that might be. Generous as it is Mr Deputy Speaker I will pick up where I left off and that was in highlighting some of the changes that the select committee recommended in response to the submissions that had been raised with us and also as a result of the strong advocacy of the local member Meka Whaitiri. One of those changes was around the ability of beneficiaries being able to by special resolution recommend a change to the constitution. When the bill was originally presented to the committee the only way changes to the constitution could be made was on recommendation by the board and there was a clear process by which the board needed to consult and engage with beneficiaries. However we believed that the representations were so strong that we should provide for an amendment to allow a number of beneficiaries who hold not less than 10 percent of beneficial interests to propose a special resolution. This I believe will be again a way to take on board beneficial interests and ensure that there is greater transparency in the decision-making process of the board at large. One of the other key areas where we had some discussion was around the transitional arrangements of the new board. Originally when the bill came to us it was proposed that the transitional board comprise three members to five members. We had some discussion—I recall that quite clearly—and we suggested that no that needed to be increased from five members to seven members. The reason for that was around the quorum to ensure that there was a reasonable number of members who would form the quorum. I am pleased that the overall view of the committee was to ensure greater transparency around the quorum arrangements and also the transitional provisions for the board. The last thing of substance that I wanted to comment on was the issue of the corpus lands under the Wī Pere Trust. Those original lands that were a part of setting up the trust—there was quite a bit of strong emotional attachment to ensure that those lands would not easily be sold could not easily be sold and that the highest threshold should apply to these lands. After some discussion and clarity for committee members it is very clear that the intention is to separate out these corpus lands as Māori land and to apply that high threshold. With that said I really want to now come back to Supplementary Order Paper 205 which was submitted by my colleague Meka Whaitiri and the proposal to revert to the status quo where the Māori Land Court would be able to determine any dispute relating to administrative and governance issues of the trust. The reason for that is in some part due to the cost of going to the High Court and we were talking about a group of beneficiaries all at varying degrees of capability to address issues of cost. But the main reason is to improve access to a body the Māori Land Court which already has a well-documented institutional knowledge of the issues around the Wī Pere Trust in particular and also the dispute provisions. So I think that is a sensible provision and it is something that the House at large could consider. It is interesting that this particular bill proceeds the substantial changes that will be made to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act. I say this because in a sense the Wī Pere Trust has got a specific dispensation for the way in which it operates. It is a very successful trust. We have been impressed by its operations and its futuristic vision for the capability of its organisation and the various interests that it has. We remain committed to ensuring that those concerns of beneficiaries in particular can be better reflected through the new governance arrangements and in particular changing the constitution to make provision for those interests. I think we have achieved that in part with the constructive working around the select committee. We were well serviced in fact by our officials on this bill. I want to make comment that we received such good advice and clarity on this issue that the purposeful amendments to the bill I think in the end were welcomed by the Wī Pere Trust as they were by the select committee. We were ably chaired by Nuk Korako who has a knack of being able to get some decisions across the table in a convivial manner as Mr Deputy Speaker would know. I do not have 6 months to be able to speak to this bill. I recommend the changes. I also recommend the strong consideration of Supplementary Order Paper 205 put up by my colleague Meka Whaitiri as a very strong advocate for the area in which the Wī Pere Trust resides. Kia ora tātou.