Korako NukNUK KORAKO (National): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā e mihi atu ki a koe huri noa i Te Whare nei tēnā koutou. Tēnei te mihi o te whanauka o te waka o Tākitimu Kahungunu e mihi atu ki a koutou.[My thanks and acknowledgments to you Mr Assistant Speaker and to those of you throughout the House greetings. I this relative of the Tākitimu waka acknowledge you Kahungunu my congratulations to you collectively.]I take this call on the second reading of the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Amendment Bill. First of all I want to congratulate the member of Parliament for Wairarapa on bringing this bill to Parliament and also to acknowledge the MP for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti our previous speaker Meka Whaitiri who gave us a very good overview of both Papawai and Kaikokirikiri. I also want to acknowledge my fellow members of the Māori Affairs Committee who have worked really constructively on this bill. The other part is that in respect of those who did submit—there were very few submitters—it was really important that we did hear from them particularly from the trust and Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā. I think the important thing that came out of that was the fact around the Te Reo Māori version and the other part of it really was to make this fit for purpose for the 21st century.The Māori Affairs Committee looked at this bill and we continually will after this second reading particularly around the Committee stage. One thing that I think is really important and it was touched on very quickly by previous speakers—just to cut across a couple of amendments that we have actually recommended for the bill. One of them is actually around an issue that has arisen in that the Attorney-General had issued a report under the Bill of Rights Act. Under that it concluded that one provision in this bill is actually inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act 1990. The issue here centres around the provisions in the bill itself which require a member's position on the trust board to be vacated in certain circumstances. These circumstances—just to sort of highlight them—include members of the trust board becoming subject to a compulsory treatment order; that was the first one. The second one is becoming a special patient under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992. And the other one was having an order made about them under the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988. I thought that this one here was a really important part particularly around the report that came back from the Attorney-General. These provisions are obviously well-intentioned within the bill itself but the intention is to ensure that if a person no longer has the capacity to carry out the work of a board member they are removed and their position is replaced. That is where the issue lies.However the issue with the provisions as originally drafted is that in fact compulsory treatment orders under the Mental Health Act do not by themselves signify that someone lacks the capacity for a particular position. So as originally drafted this bill used these orders in a way that was not intended in the Mental Health Act and would therefore potentially invalidate the position of a board member who became subject to such an order but who was still perfectly capable of carrying out his or her position. This is what caused this provision to fall foul of the Bill of Rights Act and particularly the right to be free from discrimination. That is one amendment that we looked at and was discussed particularly after receiving the advice from the Attorney-General's office.There was another one that I think is worth highlighting and this one particularly is bringing this trust into the 21st century making it fit for purpose and it is clause 13 of the bill amending section 15 of the principal Act. We believe that the intention of the trust board although the board wants to have more control over its investments including the ability to diversify its investments to better provide for its beneficiaries—the bill as originally drafted would have limited the trust board to investing in land. So what we recommended as another amendment is that it take out one of the clauses particularly that specifically actually signifies that it can only actually invest in land. What we did was we put in another clause or recommended another clause go in whereby the investment can be more than just land; it can actually be a number of diversified investment products right across the board.In saying that they are the two main recommended amendments that I am just highlighting here in the second reading. I think the other parts of it are particularly around this situation about whānau about the whānau of Wairarapa and it was actually an issue that was considered within the language of the bill. I want just very quickly to say something around the submission from the Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā Trust—particularly around the Te Reo Māori version—around opening it up more instead of being specific about certain whānau who were going to be beneficiaries under this. The bill has actually been extended out further to talk more about the whānau of Wairarapa. That is another one of the recommendations we have made—not just specifically—about kotahitaka [unity] right across the board of Wairarapa. They are the amendments that I wanted to profile here today at the second reading and I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.