Tirikatene RinoRINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): I am very pleased to take a call in this Committee stage. At the outset I do want to acknowledge the Wī Pere Trust for its patience in ushering through this bill because it has been a while. I understand it has been close to a decade since it has been talking with officials and working out ways as to how it can update its trust deed or its method of operation its structure. So I do acknowledge it. It is one of those unsung giants of the Māori economy that are under the radar so to speak. Not too many people would have heard of it but it is a very impressive agribusiness up there in the Gisborne-Tūranga area. So I am pleased that we are able to do what we can in the House to update and modernise its structure.In updating the structure I just want to pick up on a couple of things. When we talk about the Wī Pere Trust and having to use Parliament to pass a law to update or modernise its structure one would ask the question: why would it want to have a private statutory trust? It would be much more convenient in this modern day and age to have a conventional business structure—a company limited partnerships or the like—rather than having to wait 25 years to come to Parliament and spend 10 years with officials to work on a piece of legislation to finally modernise its structure the way that it is set up and its governance.But then one has to look at the name of the trust the history of the trust and the whakapapa. Wīremu Pere a renowned member of this House served for many years—28 years I believe—in the Eastern Māori seat and he also served in the Upper House. We are talking about a rangatira their tupuna who left this legacy for his descendants. So it is in that light that I can understand how the whānau or the descendants wish to preserve that whakapapa within the statute but also to modernise it so they can go about their business without being unduly stymied by some archaic provisions.I just want to raise a point. By going back to the Maōri Purposes Act of 1991 which was the last piece of legislation for the trust it is actually based on a trust deed that I think goes back to 1899. Wī Pere settled this trust back in 1899. It was a trust deed and over successive years I believe there must have been changes in the trust. It is all set out in section 2 of that Act which we are updating through this bill. But there is one part in the section—and I assume it has been covered but it has been taken out. I know the language is quite dated it is quite legal but it talks about: And whereas it is expedient having regard to the intentions express or implied and contained in the trust deed that new trusts should be declared …". What it is saying there is that there has been recognition that the actions that are being taken take into account all the way back to the trust deed—the intentions express or implied that were established right back in 1899.So my question is: has the Minister gone back to that deed and made sure that what is occurring through this bill actually aligns and accords with the intentions of that original trust deed? That is all I am saying. I am sure that is the case but maybe back in those days it was only contemplated that natural people would be the trustees. Corporate trustees could be expressly precluded under the trust deed. I know it is a moot point in a way but I think given the importance of the whakapapa of this piece of legislation that it goes all the way back to the trust deed I would just like to seek an assurance from the Minister that what is being proposed through modernising the structure now has regard to what was laid out all those years ago in the original trust deed and that it aligns with what was laid out in that original trust deed because those specific words are being taken out of section 2 in the bill as proposed.While I have got another call then I would like to move on to the Supplementary Order Paper that deals with Te Rarawa. I would like to acknowledge Te Rarawa as well. It is one of those instances whereby an iwi creates an entity—it is a mandated iwi organisation; it is called Te Rūnanga o Te Rarawa—and then I think through the passage of their Treaty settlement they dissolved that entity and set up another entity and called it Te Rūnanga o Te Rarawa; exactly the same. We have got two Te Rūnanga o Te Rarawas and they just want to make sure that the right Te Rūnanga o Te Rarawa is actually covered by the legislation. When I think of Te Rarawa though I think of the huge contribution that all the five iwi of the Muriwhenua made to our fisheries settlements that we have today. Were it not for Matiu Rata going to the Waitangi Tribunal for that Muriwhenua report followed by the Ngāi Tahu Sea Fisheries Report those ground-breaking reports taken by those groups to the Waitangi Tribunal opened the door for us to have the Māori fisheries settlements that we have today.So here we are over 30 years now—30 years on from those pioneering moves from those rangatira from the Muriwhenua directly to Te Rarawa. So I think it is right that we correct things in a legal sense and make sure that the right entities are actually covered. But what I would seek from the Minister is just some advice that Te Ohu Kaimoana have I guess approved or they have given their support to this piece of legislation because what we are doing in this legislation is we are basically directing through an Act of Parliament that Te Ohu Kaimoana has to put this new Te Rūnanga o Te Rarawa into its register and that it has ticked all the boxes under the Maōri Fisheries Act and that it complies with the Maōri Fisheries Act.That may not be the case—I am sure it is—but what I would like from the Minister is to know that there is indeed endorsement from Te Ohu Kaimoana that indeed this new Te Rūnanga o Te Rarawa is a mandated iwi organisation in accordance with the Maōri Fisheries Act. Although we are directing them to fill out the register and tick all the boxes it would be nice to know that Te Ohu Kaimoana actually supports this move and we are not just bullying it to write in a new iwi. Technically that iwi may not be in compliance with the Act but one would think that Te Ohu Kaimoana—it would be good to have its endorsement of what we are doing here.While we are on this point of the other 57-odd iwi that are mandated iwi organisations under the Māori fisheries settlement are there any others that have switched hats kept the same name and created new entities to hold their fisheries settlement assets? So what I am asking the Minister is: are there any other mandated iwi organisations that are in a similar position to Te Rarawa? If that is the case rather than coming back to Parliament and passing many of these types of legislation it might be good to do all in one hit. Thank you very much."