Whaitiri MekaMEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): E Te Māngai o Te Whare tēnā koe. Otirā e ngā mema o Te Whare nei tēnā tātou katoa. Labour will not be supporting this bill not because Meka Whaitiri had some kind of road to Damascus conversion to mindless and spiteful opposition but simply because it does not live up to what its intention was and that was to provide tools to Māori land owners to better utilise their land.I have brought this large pile as a demonstration of the amount of paper—the reports and the submissions—that the Māori Affairs Committee received and I do want to support what the Minister for Māori Development said around the work of the select committee. It is a very comprehensive bill very comprehensive and in true honesty as a member of the committee—well not actually a permanent member but a member who subbed on throughout the consideration of this bill—I can definitely attest to this side of the House particularly having been very constructive members of that select committee to make sure that where we could make some changes to the bill we would definitely make those suggestions and the Minister has acknowledged them.I do want to say there are some good points in this bill. Obviously the rangatōpū option becoming optional—before it was almost mandatory—has been a big change. But it was interesting to note during the select committee process that certain Māori organisations came to the select committee and wanted opt-out provisions so we have made some amendments in the bill for certain organisations to opt out. The Minister mentioned the second-chance mechanism which is in clause 51(8) in Part 3. I will not go into that. The Minister also touched on the clarification around the whāngai relationship which is in clause 8. I want to also acknowledge—and it is not a new provision in the bill—the existing provision in the Act that talks about the retention of the 75 percent threshold if land is to be sold by all the owners. That is not a new provision but it is retained in this bill as a commitment to retaining land. And of course the Minister talked about the judges' appointment.I want to actually refer members to those who appeared before the select committee. We had approximately 150 submitters; about 47 appeared before the select committee. I too want to add my word of thanks for the many—large small—legal people who presented very compelling and passionate submissions to the select committee. I just want to pull out a couple as a way of saying why we believe the intent of the bill is a just intent—i.e. to provide the tools to Māori land owners to better utilise their land—but we have reservations around the pace at which this has gone from the intent to this particular stage of the bill in terms of the second reading.There are a lot of other issues with the bill that I hope to address in my contribution but let us just turn to the Māori Land Court judges and their submission. On page 2 of their submission this is what they said: 1. The Bill is a high-risk approach to critical law reform affecting the taonga tuku iho that is Māori land. 2. The Bill will undermine existing Māori property rights. 3. Key assumptions underpinning the Bill are flawed. 4. Aspects of the Bill do not align with tikanga Māori. 5. The Bill mainstreams Māori Land and the Māori Land Court."I heard the Minister say that many of the views put in the minority view are addressed but I refute the position that the Minister is taking. The Māori Land Court judges have not submitted just once on this bill; they have submitted several times—once twice three times. In fact I recall that it was their submission that the Minister tried to prevent being admitted during the Waitangi Tribunal hearings.Hon Te Ururoa Flavell: Rubbish. Come on Meka.MEKA WHAITIRI: No that is correct. That is correct. But let us move to another submitter. The New Zealand Human Rights Commission in its submission paragraphs 23 and 24 on page 8 said: "Given the Government's human rights commitments as regards the implementation of UNDRIP the Bill should both reflect and advance its principles." and: "In the Commission's view the application of the UNDRIP principle of free prior and informed consent reinforces the Tribunal's finding that the Bill presently does not have a sufficient mandate amongst Māori." I have given you two quotes and there are many that are contained in our minority view where we said that major people had opposition to this bill.So when I come down and look at what the selling point of this bill was it was actually having the tools to enable Māori land owners provided by the Māori Land Service. Yes the Minister has noted that that is work that is still progressing but one of the fundamental underpinnings of this particular major land reform was the creation of a Māori Land Service. Yet the committee heard during the submission from the group that is working on the design that the business case is not coming to the Government until April 2017. In April 2017 the business case is being presented. There is no guarantee that this Government is going to commit ongoing funding let alone take the recommendations of a business case that is not yet public. That is of real concern.We have concerns about the Māori Land Service around the delivery capability particularly when the intention of the Māori Land Service is to take over the succession orders of the Māori Land Court a new dispute resolution service—which I do want to acknowledge the Māori Land Court believes we need—and the registry services that are currently found in the Māori Land Court. These are major capabilities that Māori land owners are looking for some detail on and yet they have not been provided with it.There is also the issue of fees—fees that have not yet been determined—so that Māori land owners might know what they are up for when they go to get succession orders. I thought that might have been really fundamental. There is also a very clear lack of a transition plan in the Māori Land Service as we move from the administrative services of a Māori Land Court into the Māori Land Service. We have no transitional plan. That is hugely risky to Māori land owners as to whom they are supposed to deal with. When you look at this bill and when you read the clauses and the various parts of the bill you actually see the removal of some of the powers that were in the Māori Land Court.I want to pick up the earlier point around the delivery of capability because at this current moment the Māori Land Court is under restructuring. Some 30-odd very senior managers within the Māori Land Court hold a lot of this very important knowledge on behalf of local Māori land owners but their jobs are going to be disestablished at the end of January. So the issue around a proposed entity yet to be established the Māori Land Service we totally support but in the process again that this Minister particularly is going down we ask him to give some surety and some safety commitments to Māori land owners that as it morphs from the Māori Land Court into this new Māori Land Service which is yet to be determined and designed their rights to their land their rights to their succession and their rights to information around their land are safeguarded.Look in my closing I have tried to outline why we are not supporting this bill. Can I just with the indulgence of the House for a couple of seconds acknowledge that 20000 houses in Gisborne lost power yesterday. I have just received a note that they have got the power back on. I want to just say thank you to the Eastland Network lines mechanics who worked overnight into the day to bring the power back. Can I also send my condolences to the family of the two who lost their lives tragically in the plane crash.Labour cannot be supporting this bill. We stand by the reasons why and it is up to the Minister and the Government to prove how this is going to benefit Māori land owners. Kia ora tātou."