Shirley Ken: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — Second Reading 
Shirley Ken: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:623;Page:18500] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party recognises that the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill is an important bill. It is actually the legal structure that will provide the framework for the corporate body in essence that will receive the proceeds that have been negotiated in good faith with the Crown. The ACT party certainly recognises the critical importance of property rights. We stand as part of our brand on protecting property rights. 
Various iwi and runanga have had longstanding legitimate grievances with the Crown on property rights based on breaches of article 2 of the treaty. We are aware that the executive of the Government will be bringing to this Parliament the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill in a short time. In essence this bill provides the legal framework and the structure that will allow an entity to be set up to manage the proceeds of that settlement in a modern world. Therefore it is very important. However while the ACT party wishes the runanga every success we cannot support this bill and I shall explain to the House why that is so. 
I remind the House that we supported the bill going to a select committee but we flagged in our speech at the outset what we expected to be in the bill in terms of the minimal requirement of good governance structures. For whatever reason those issues have not been addressed. I expect that the House will pass this legislation by a clear majority and it is with quite a heavy heart we say that we will not support it because we would like to. But we cannot leave off the record the fact that what we are creating here is sloppy legislation. It is badly drafted and it would not be accepted by any commercial lawyer as an acceptable governance structure for anybody managing an asset on behalf of any group and I shall expand on that. It is for those reasons and those reasons alone that the ACT party will put on the record its opposition to this legislation. The definition in clause 3(1) is just a circular argument. The drafting of the bill is utterly insulting. I am amazed that the Minister with responsibility for the bill and more particularly his officials have not drawn those inadequacies to his attention. 
The bill says absolutely nothing about how conflicts of interest are to be dealt with and nothing about how nepotism is to be dealt with. It says nothing about the kinds of accounts and what scrutiny they will get or what kind of independent audit there will be. [ 
Interruption 
] The member says it is their business. Well why is it not the same for every charitable group in the country? Is there one law for all in this country or not? That is very much the point. 
The bill seems to deliberately reject the Companies Act as a model. It seems to reject the Charitable Trusts Act the Co-operative Companies Act and the Industrial and Provident Societies Act models. They are well-established commercial models for good reasons. It is all very well for members to say that it is their business. Well why do we not say that to every charitable trust in the country? [ 
Interruption 
] Exactly. Who dished out all the money to the Pipi Foundation? If we do not have governance structures and rules and police those governance structures it is not fair on the taxpayer as a whole. It is particularly not fair on the beneficiaries the very people whom this settlement is for—the runanga. [ 
Interruption 
] “It’s disgraceful.” says the Minister. What is disgraceful is that he has let a flawed commercial model go through because that is asking for trouble down the line. I am appalled that the Minister—[ 
Interruption 
] I would say the same to any group—any charitable trust incorporated society or whatever. They need to have proper governance structures of accountability of audit and of how people are elected and what their terms are. It is for very good sound reasons. 
If the Minister and the Labour Government are saying that we will have two sets of laws—one for everyone else in society and separate laws of lesser accountability for Maori settlements—then I say good grief are we heading for trouble! That is why the ACT party is flagging this issue. We want a robust governance structure for this settlement but this bill does not provide it. Therefore we will oppose the bill.