Horomia Parekura: Māori Trustee Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHoromia Parekura: Māori Trustee Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 05 May 2009. Volume:654;Page:2843. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti):Mihi atu ki a koe e te Minita Māori e Pita tēnā koe.[My acknowledgments to you Pita Minister of Māori Affairs greetings.]I will reconcile some of the matters progressed by the previous speaker about the great term that I undertook in steering the Māori Affairs portfolio. When that member was the Minister of Māori Affairs he did nothing. When I came into Parliament unemployment was running at 21 percent the minimum wage had not been touched and a whole lot of our people were in disarray. But I will recognise that member’s effort in starting the commissions that he established. I thought they were good under his tutelage.Paul Quinn: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Notwithstanding my great respect for the honourable member I fail to follow his train of thought as it relates to the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill and in particular to the Committee stage.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I think that is a little heads-up that probably is in order. If we are using these examples they should be comparative to Part 1. I ask the member to continue.Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I was getting there. The issue with this bill in all of its parts is timing. Certainly the accountability issues that have pervaded the Māori Trustee over a long period of time need to be dealt with. I am very pleased that the Minister of Māori Affairs continues to take those provisions through.The issues relevant to the Māori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation as outlined in new sections 4 and 5 are provisions that the Labour Party was committed to and is keen to follow. The issues around accountability in new subsection 6(1) in clause 7 which provides that the Māori Trustee will be appointed by the Minister of Māori Affairs as was brought up by the previous speaker are truly issues that need to be dealt with. The accumulated funds that the Māori Trustee manages are beneficiaries’ funds as the previous speaker continually reminds me. The bigger part of the bill—which he suggested has started to disappear—has now become the Māori Trustee and Māori Development Amendment Bill. It is about kick-starting assets owned by Māori to help those who were short of cash flow. The beauty of the Māori Trustee system is the management of multiple layers. Multiplicity pervades the title.There were some really unfair situations relating to the Māori Trustee that Māori people had to put up with. Evaluations of Māori properties as discussed during the genesis of the original bill which is now split into two bills—and this is some of the detail of that discussion—are recognised in the sense that they are considered similar to Pākeha properties and there is the issue of saleability. The real issue is that those property owners are paying the same level of rates yet they will never sell that property. There is a contradiction in terms. The freeing up of the Māori Trustee ensuring that the role was more transparent and that accountability in some way came back to the people were the reasons behind the second thrust of the original bill which now makes up the Māori Trustee and Māori Development Amendment Bill.The Māori Trustee has stood the test of time. The services purchased from and paid for by the Crown are those services that had to be differentiated because they were stuck together. The bill is quite specific that those services are differentiated. There is a whole host of things that the Māori Trustee can do in a better fashion in my mind but which have not yet been done. So if one takes the basic fundamentals of what comprises Māori land one adds multiplicity which is brought about by a succession plan whereby the title or hectarage is divided amongst all family members. That is the Māori situation. The land does not necessarily or generally go from one owner to the next owner. That multiplicity then makes it unmanageable yet the premise that the land is valued as land of production similar to Pākehā land is something that it really has to be measured on. I cite the Mangatū case in relation to the rates that Māori pay and the value they cannot get because they do not sell. It seems quite weird.The bill also makes changes to the way in which interest on money held in trust in the common fund is determined because that is something we have to be very clear about—about it being banked and the interest gleaned off it then minimised and returned to the owners at a lesser rate. That is not fair. The bill provides that the Māori Trustee must pay the amount earned by the trustee in interest less the management fee. The Māori Trustee will be required to review the amounts paid on a quarterly basis in light of appropriate market rates.One point I want to make is the unfairness on Māori beneficiaries in relation to what the nation the State or the Government places upon them. The property is valued like anybody else’s property. It is rated like anybody else’s rates. Māori owners actually pay huge rates in areas like the Bay of Plenty North Auckland Hawke’s Bay and Tai Rāwhiti. Huge amounts of rates are paid but Māori do not get the benefit of selling their property. This bill will make things better.