Mahuta NanaiaHon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Ā tēnā koe tēnā koutou. Tēnei ka tāpiri atu aku whakaaro ki ērā i waihotia i mua i te aroaro o Te Pāremata. Ka tukuna ngā mihi ki a koutou ngā mema o Te Poari o Papawai me Kaikōkirikiri tā koutou taratī e kaha ana ki te hāpai i ngā āhuatanga e pā ana ki ngā mātauranga ō ā koutou tamariki mokopuna. Heoi anō he maha ngā kōrero i puta mai ko tāku nei he tīpako i ētehi o ngā kaupapa kāre anō i kōrerohia e koutou.[And so my appreciation to you and to you collectively. I add my thoughts to those that were placed before Parliament. I extend my thanks to you the members of the Papawai and Kaikōkirikiri Board and to the efforts by your trustees to support matters relating to the education of your children and grandchildren. Indeed many contributions emerged and I merely highlight some matters not referred to collectively by any of you.]In offering a contribution to this debate and having heard all the contributions of other members I want to comment on the modernisation aspects of the bill which are useful for any trust. But more importantly in the spirit of the amendments that are offered with this particular bill I situate my comments within the context of a trust wanting to determine for itself a way forward. I do not have any connections to this particular area so I did read with interest some of the initial aspects about the bill. Firstly in so far as the scholarships are concerned in the original Act of 1943 section 12(4) states: (a) the provision of scholarships for … children of British subjects of all races and for children of other persons being inhabitants of islands in the Pacific Ocean but so that preference is given to boys and girls of the Ngatikahungunu Tribe residing in the Wairarapa district south of a straight line passing through Akitio and Pahiatua and then on to other Maoris or descendants of Maoris residing on the east coast of the North Island of New Zealand and failing such to Maoris or descendants of Maoris of any part of New Zealand:". Well—there is a broad definition of who were the original benefactors of this particular legislation. We can see that over time the definition has really come right back to where the lands are which is in the Wairarapa and is more specific in clause 9 of the bill which amends section 12 of the Act. For completeness' sake it says: "(a) the provision of scholarships for the post-primary education of children who have whakapapa in relation to the tangata whenua of Wairarapa:". So that is a nice summation of who will be the benefactors of this particular bill. I listened with interest to my colleague Meka Whaitiri who acknowledged the trust and the work that it does to fund students. I noted that on the website there are scholarships available to Hukarere Girls' College Rathkeale College St Matthew's Collegiate School Te Aute College and other colleges. The trust has a leadership and personal development grant as well as a scholarship for the stated purposes of the Act. I am sure that all manner of positive stories can be told about the assistance that has been given over a long period of time to those young people who have gained from their pathway in education. My colleague Adrian Rurawhe talked about the rotation period for the board. This is really good because the board can now implement its succession plan and actively ensure that it will have members who will regularly be able to be appointed to the board gain skills contribute to the legacy of the board and plan actively in terms of succession. In the vacancy clauses it is clear that should a trustee vacate their position for whatever stated reason in the bill then a new member will be appointed for the remaining term of that particular member and the rotation will continue. So that is very clear and I am sure that was the intent. I read with interest that in terms of the contracting aspects of the board there is no provision now for oral contracts. That provision has been repealed. So I thought: "Oh that's interesting. Were oral contracts allowed?" and I went back to the original legislation and it said that yes oral contracts were allowed by trustees of the board but for no sum greater than £10 which was then amended to $20. But it is interesting to see that that has been repealed altogether and that certainly makes sense to me. There are other aspects around removing the prescription of scholarships to Church of England - only schools. Again that links back to comments made by colleagues that as long as the students whakapapa to tangata whenua of Wairarapa—that is the criteria so that is very clear. I heard in the contribution of a previous speaker that the bill empowers the board to make its own decisions. Clause 11 which amends section 14 of the principal Act makes clear the role of the Minister. It removes the parochial oversight of the Minister in terms of selling or leasing land. It makes it very clear that only Clareville land can be sold not Papawai or Kaikōkirikiri lands. Ultimately that decision is made on the determinations of the board and does not have to go back to a second or third party. Also the role of the Māori Land Court has it appears been removed from this decision as well. So that really is affirming the ability of the board to get on with its business and make decisions as it sees fit for the investment and management of these lands and business operations. The other aspect that I read with interest—just to try to give some context to some of these changes—was the repeal provisions in relation to the leasing of certain Kaikōkirikiri lands. Previously leases were allowed for a period of 7 years with a right of renewal for the same term or a shorter period and the rent was able to be determined by valuation in those renewal periods. That has been repealed and the board again has the ability to determine for itself the leasing provisions. The bill provides for copies of the report on the operations of the trust to be provided to the Bishop of Te Upoko o Te Ika which is consistent with how the membership of the board has been modernised to reflect the office of the Bishop of Te Upoko o Te Ika. Previous to that reports were sent to the Minister of Māori Affairs and the synod of the Diocese of Wellington as well as the General Synod. So what it has done is it has again reaffirmed the relationship with the church through the Bishop and its reporting lines and site functions as well. I comment on the issue of Te Reo translation. It is a shame that we were not able to achieve what might have been a good I guess template for small and useful bits of legislation like this by having dual language. Sadly we were not able to accomplish that based on the advice from the Parliamentary Counsel Office but going forward it is the intent of the Māori Affairs Committee to ensure that new bills coming to our committee are able to be planned for in so far as having dual-language bills. I hope that gives some comfort to people listening to this debate and thinking about whether they should modernise their own bits of legislation which will be useful I am sure. In order to address the Te Reo Māori aspects we as the Māori Affairs Committee under the good guidance of our chair will have better guidelines to be able to navigate our way through these particular issues so that we not only have good useful modernised laws to guide the activities of trusts but also can broaden the scope and role of Te Reo Māori within the legislature. So without saying much more Labour happily supports this bill in its third reading."