Henare Tau: Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Henare Tau: Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:644;Page:13971] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I want to start by saying that the National Party will support this bill’s referral to the select committee especially the very very non-controversial issues with the Maori Trust Boards Act 1955—the voting age being 18 and the changes to the annual payment to the Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board under the new agreement relating to the lake—and issues with the Maniapoto Maori Trust Board Act 1988 including formalising of a new regional management committee for the Kawhia Harbour and effecting a name change for the Maniapoto council of elders. Also the minor drafting errors in Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 and Te Ture Whenua Maori Amendment Act 2002 are to be addressed.  
I want to cut to the chase and say it is about time that there was an increase in the statutory cap in terms of the membership of the Waitangi Tribunal from 16 to 20. I think that some form of increase and some form of change to the way we look at the Treaty settlement process is well overdue. It has needed to happen for a long time. So I congratulate the Minister on at least increasing from 16 to 20 the statutory cap on the membership. Whether we will get an extra 4 people or whether we will get the maximum and whether the tribunal will be funded appropriately to actually move quickly to settle to look into and to tell the stories of those who are laying claims before the tribunal is another matter and that most probably is not the outcome of this bill. On the surface it is a mechanical bill that tightens the bolts changes a few tyres here and there and hopefully puts a new spin on this Minister of Maori Affairs and the work he has done—or the lack of work—over the last 7 or 8 years.  
My colleague the Hon Georgina te Heuheu was absolutely right in her criticism of the Minister in terms of his wanting to include in this bill the amendment to the Maori Trustee Act 1955. I was shocked and appalled that no one had told the Minister that in a Maori Purposes bill we could not really have as controversial a measure as that. A Maori Purposes bill is an omnibus bill and it is supposed to be supported by the House. At the briefing he gave the National Party we saw that the bill had the amendment to the Maori Trustee Act and as my colleague said to change something like that to use a Maori Purposes bill to change something as fundamental as the Maori Trustee and the role of the Maori Trustee is huge. It is not only controversial but also a huge step in the wrong direction I would suggest. There has not been any consultation whatsoever with those beneficiaries who basically own the bank in terms of the Maori Trustee and whose money it is that the Maori Trustee looks after in the interest of those people.  
The National Party will not stand in the way of this bill which as I said is a mechanical bill. It changes the nuts changes a few tyres here and there and greases the wheels. I think when it does come to the Maori Affairs Committee we will find—and the House will find—that the most interesting part of this bill will be the amendment to the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. That really has been and will continue to be the nub of the question as to race relations in the next 5-10 years.  
We know that educational standards health issues and the like will continue to be issues but until this nation is able to stand up and say to itself that we have honestly and fairly tried to address the claims before the tribunal in a manner that is quick and lasting then we are not going to go anywhere near where we thought our country might have been 10 20 or 150 years ago. I think that will be the major point of the Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) when it comes before the select committee. It will be about where our nation goes. We cannot go down a track of just tinkering with legislation and hoping that one day things will just fall into place. The increase from 16 to 20 on the statutory cap is basically nothing legislation. We will see whether it does what the Minister says it will do. I have grave doubts because we cannot increase the cap unless we are going— 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: You were blaming Winston last time! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: No it is not the Rt Hon Winston Peters’s fault I say to Mr Horomia. It has nothing to do with New Zealand First. Like I said about the last bill it has got everything to do with the Minister wanting to show the community that he has been doing something—whatever it is. For the last 8 years— 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: That’s why more Maori work. That’s why Maori assets are growing. We work hard. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Oh yes; that is why Maoridom voted for the Maori Party. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: You’ll saddle up the market rents. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Oh—market rents! That Minister can talk about market rents. He was one of the slum landlords down on the East Coast. He was trying to rent out his house to his whanau and I would not have rented out a house that looked like that to a dog. But the Minister did and we all know that. We all know he is a bit of a landlord down on the East Coast. We all know he is one of the absentee landlords but that is all right. What we are talking about is a Clayton’s Treaty of Waitangi amendment to the Maori Purposes Bill.  
What we are here today to talk about is that Minister’s lack of foresight and lack of vision in the 8 years he has been sitting in his seat and taking the ministerial salary the Crown car and everything that goes with it like the free flights all around the country. All he can come up with is increasing the membership of the tribunal from 16 to 20. That is not going to work unless we put in substantial resources along with the extra four people. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Which has been done. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Oh it has been done—in the twilight of the member’s career. He is in the twilight of his career and he wants to make an impression but the only lasting impression the Minister makes is that of a do-nothing Minister for 8 years.  
National will vote for this bill. We want it to come before the select committee because we want to hear what the people have to say about this Minister’s lack of work over 8 years. He has been paid but he could have stayed at home. In fact it would have been better if he had stayed at home and taken the salary that he has been on for so long. We will support this bill’s referral to the select committee and we cannot wait for the submissions to roll in in their thousands.