Whaitiri Meka: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWhaitiri Meka: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 02 March 2016. Volume:711;Page:9295. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]11.MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti) to the Minister for Māori Development: Does he believe the recent consultation hui on Te Ture Whenua Māori Reform has given him a mandate for land reform; if so why?Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Minister for Māori Development): Kia ora tātau katoa. Kia whai wāhi au ki a Ranginui e takoto mai rā i Ōrākei kei te tuatahi. E koro takoto mai.[Acknowledgments to you all. I take an opportunity in the first instance to acknowledge Dr Ranginui lying in state there at Ōrākei. Lie there grand old one.]In response to the question there is broad support for the land reform that comes not only from recent hui but also from the extensive consultation that has taken place over a period of 17 years. I for one am not prepared to stand by and wait another generation while too many Māori landowners are constrained by unfair and inequitable law.Meka Whaitiri: Can he confirm that te ture whenua Māori will allow freehold Māori land to be reclassified as general land and then sold off to the highest bidder?Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: The member will have to wait until it arrives in Parliament but that is not the intent.Meka Whaitiri: Will he ignore Māori landowners the New Zealand Māori Council iwi leaders and the Māori Women’s Welfare League who have rejected his changes which will lead to the loss of land for future generations for Māori?Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: I can say that at Waitangi actually the iwi leaders were quite supportive of the programme that we are running and in fact we have some letters of support already that have come in the door. In terms of the consultation that we have run we can say that we have been working very hard to have landowners engaged and indeed iwi leaders the Māori Women’s Welfare League and the New Zealand Māori Council have been involved in the discussion about the bill and workshops during this year. Is it a hard process? Absolutely. We have taken the unusual step of releasing two drafts. We have taken the unusual step of having or counting up at least 121 hui since 1998 on these reforms. Most of those have been in the last 3 years and just in case there is any doubt we have received 666 submissions since 1998. Most of these have been in the last 3 years. There has got to be something in that that tells the member that actually there is support for this movement.Chris Bishop: How does the series of expert advisory groups and dozens of national hui conducted over the past 3 years compare with the Labour Government’s decision to confiscate the foreshore and seabed after consultation with Winston Peters? [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: If members on my right-hand side wish to stay for the balance of question time—I know there is not more to go—then they will not interject. [Interruption] I will hear the point of order if there is one.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just invite you to reflect on the Speaker’s rulings that you have previously made about the Government members using their supplementary questions to ask questions that are simply designed to provide an opportunity for attacking the Opposition as this one does. The Minister has no responsibility for the actions of the previous Government.Mr SPEAKER: I will hear from the Hon Gerry Brownlee.Hon Gerry Brownlee: It is not at all unreasonable to ask a Minister to make a comparison between processes that could have some degree of controversy. So the question seeks to make controversy out of the superb process that has been run by the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell and the real point is that it is in stark contrast to a different process used by a previous Government.Chris Hipkins: Point of order—Mr SPEAKER: I do not need any further assistance from either and I do not know because the question has not been answered as to whether it is in stark contrast or not. Mr Hipkins is right to refer to Speaker’s ruling 174 I think it is that I will not accept a question if it is designed simply to attack the Opposition parties. But in this case the question to me is legitimate in that it is asking how the process being established by the Government compares with a process established by a previous Government. The question is in order. I will be listening very carefully to the answer so that it is informative to the House and not taken as an opportunity to attack an Opposition party.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a fresh point of order.Mr SPEAKER: Well I have ruled on that. If it is a fresh point of order I am only delighted to hear it.Chris Hipkins: There are other Speakers’ rulings and there are in fact Standing Orders around not including assertions in questions that are being asked. I know that you have been very liberal in your interpretation of that because those making assertions—then the Ministers have an opportunity to respond to any assertions they disagree with. In this case the assertions being made are being made by a questioner and being answered by a Minister neither of whom has any role in the assertions being made. So I would ask you to more strictly interpret that part of those Speakers’ rulings if these types of questions are going to be allowed.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Point of order—Mr SPEAKER: No I do not need any assistance because I think we are actually just relitigating exactly where I have been. What the question asks in essence is how does the current process being established compare with the previous process. That is the essence of the question. That is legitimate. We quite often get questions particularly to the Minister of Finance as to how the current economic trend compares with something under a previous Government and that is accepted. So the question is in order. We will listen carefully to the answer. I do not want to hear the answer being used simply as an opportunity to attack an Opposition party in which case if it is I will not hesitate to stop the answer.Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: I outlined earlier the role that we have taken in trying to consult with people across the board. I have talked about hui and I have talked about submissions. We have also made 109 changes to the bill and as a result of feedback 28 deletions. As recently as this February we have had a further 21 hui across the country to explain changes. Throughout this time we have engaged with a large number of landowners trusts and corporations both directly and through representative groups. I can say that the process that we have run has been extremely well attended and well done. We have undertaken genuine consultation with the aim of actually strengthening Māori rights the rights of the Māori people over their land and not taking away rights.Meka Whaitiri: When will he come clean with Māori and admit these changes have been driven primarily by the National Party and the party and its friends are the most likely beneficiaries of Māori land loss?Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: I will just start by giving one statement from one group that actually represents more than 150 members and I talk about the Federation of Māori Authorities. I have support from the largest representative grouping of Māori freehold landowners who will be impacted by the reforms and who support the direction of the reforms. In fact their spokesperson Liz Mellish acknowledges as do many other groups that “The [other] iteration of the draft Ture Whenua bill reflects the changes our members have asked for.” As one of the biggest landowners in the country the federation is right behind this legislation. That is what counts. The Māori landowners—that is what counts.Chris Bishop: Has he seen any other proposals for reform of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993? [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I must ask particularly for some cooperation from my presiding officer.Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: In response to the question actually yes I have strangely enough. I have seen a proposal “to help Māori realise the economic potential of Māori land by reviewing Te Ture Whenua Maori Act.” I have also seen a proposal to “review Te Ture Whenua land legislation to simplify the development options for Māori land.” Both of those appear in the Labour Party’s 2008-11 Māori affairs policies. I seek leave to table the Labour Party’s—Mr SPEAKER: Order! No. We are certainly not going there.Marama Fox: Has the Minister received any reports from landowners in the Ikaroa-Rāwhiti region to support the ture whenua reforms?Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: That is a great question. I am pleased to advise the member that I have received a number of reports from the Ikaroa-Rāwhiti region supporting the changes that are taking place in te ture whenua including one just 2 days ago from the chair of Te Aitanga-a-Māhaki Trust a trust that oversees some 30 land blocks in Gisborne. It is supportive.Marama Fox: What steps has the Minister taken to ensure that tino rangatiratanga and the Treaty of Waitangi remain at the heart of the bill?Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: That is another excellent question. The purpose and principles of the bill clearly outline that Te Tiriti o Waitangi tino rangatiratanga and taonga tuku iho are given greater effect than the current Act. If the House will indulge me for just one moment I will quote from the English version of the proposed text in the bill which says: “The purpose of this Act is to recognise and provide for the mana and tino rangatiratanga that since time immemorial Māori have exercised and continue to exercise over their lands resources and taonga in accordance with tikanga Māori and consistent with the guarantees given in Māori in Te Tiriti o Waitangi to protect the rights of owners of Māori land to retain control occupy and develop their land as taonga tuku iho for the benefit of present and future generations of owners their whānau and hapu.” If that member supports that sort of notion hopefully we will look forward to her vote when it comes into the House.