Franks Stephen: Te Whanau-a-Taupara Trust Empowering Bill — Second Reading Third Reading 
Franks Stephen: Te Whanau-a-Taupara Trust Empowering Bill — Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5730] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 The ACT party is not represented on the Maori Affairs Committee and therefore we come to the Te Whanau-a-Taupara Trust Empowering Bill cold. I hope that someone is prepared to take the call to reassure us after I have put a few questions. At the moment it is very difficult for us to know whether this is simply a minor matter—the sort of private bill matter that goes through so that Parliament can facilitate arrangements that everyone should be happy about and that are without any public interest implications—or whether instead there are things that the public should be concerned about. So as I put these questions I do rather hope that there is someone listening who can speak to this bill to answer them and reassure me. 
The first issue is the purpose clause. I do not have the advantage of having the original trust deed but the purpose clause of this new trust deed is rather extraordinary for anything that purports to be charitable or benevolent in purpose. I shall refer to clauses 3 4 and 5 of the trust deed in schedule 2. 
The first one clause 3 “Creation of Trust” is quite unexceptional. There is an obvious charitable purpose: “… to promote the educational and vocational training of beneficiaries residential care of beneficiaries in relation to their educational and vocational training spiritual welfare (including Tauparatanga) and the relief of poverty …”. There is something in there called Tauparatanga and it relates to spiritual welfare. I can only assume that because this deed relates to Te Whanau-a-Taupara somehow there is a view that the fostering of hapu or iwi consciousness has now become a facet of spiritual welfare. If so that is a rather peculiar thing for Parliament to be blessing. The notion that a clan consciousness if we were Scottish or any kind of simple family consciousness is now spiritual is indeed peculiar. I would certainly like to know whether that is the correct reading of it. 
But then we come to the supplementary “Purposes and Powers” clause. We find that as long as the trustees have decided that satisfactory provision has been made to meet the primary purpose of the trust which is educational they may “Establish maintain and develop marae …” and they may “Advance the cultural activities needs or aspirations of any of the beneficiaries:”. That appears to cover any aspiration. Who knows what a cultural aspiration is? Is it to have the biggest CD collection in Gisborne? What is a cultural aspiration? The trustees are also able we see here separately to “Advance Tauparatanga amongst the beneficiaries:”—whatever that is—and they may provide donations to any beneficiary. That is not a charitable purpose. It simply means that they can hand out the trust assets to any beneficiary with no restriction as to purpose. 
The purposes come perhaps within the bounds of charitable purpose where they state the trustees may “Relieve poverty and make loans or grants towards the relief of indigence or distress …”. That is fine but here is Parliament creating a trust with $7 million or $8 million of assets that no longer even has to list its beneficiaries or keep a roll. There is a concession in this bill against that requirement. So it is not a normal iwi or rununga. This trust will now be in the hands of trustees who no longer have the Anglican Church looking over their shoulder. It will now be left to the beneficiaries to incur the cost of challenging anything that the trustees do because simple ordinary charitable trust law will apply. Yet these trustees are now free to “Establish maintain and develop marae …”; to “Advance the cultural activities needs”—it may not even be cultural needs; from the way that this provision is drafted it may just be any need or aspiration of any beneficiary because this drafting is very unclear—and to provide donations. 
It could just be a case of if the trust blows this $7 million it is one family’s loss and why should Parliament worry? Well Parliament should worry because this trust is also getting a tax concession that no one else gets. 
David Benson-Pope 
: Tell us about the Pipi Trust. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: What about you? 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Is that the Labour whip interjecting there? Is it of no concern at all that Parliament is changing a trust that for 100 years has advanced education; is putting the money into the hands of trustees who can hand it out in donations to anyone they like; and is giving them a tax concession and telling this trust that it can do what any wealthy family anywhere in the country would love to do—put its assets into a trust that the Inland Revenue Department cannot tax then use that money for anything it likes? Who in this House would try to defend that? Who would defend the Inland Revenue Department being obliged to stand clear of taxing a trust for an unknown but small number of beneficiaries with $7 million to $8 million in it that can be used for any purpose that the trustees like that has no connection with any traditional charity? That is either a great boondoggle or this is another instance of the Labour Government considering that when it comes to pork-barrelling racism and handing out largesse it will even allow its mates the full freedom to prey on trust assets that should be going to beneficiaries and that should be going to advance education. 
I had hoped that someone would be saying: “Oh that seems to be an oversight; there’s a simple explanation.” I had thought that someone would undertake to take a call and explain this. Instead I get a series of insults from Ministers on the Labour benches saying the equivalent of the old chant “What about you?”. Why has no one thought that this is serious? Why has the Maori Affairs Committee made an acknowledgment that these are concessions without acknowledging the full scope of them? This trust does not have a roll of beneficiaries and now no one will be empowered to look into this. Why is this trust being exposed to the depredations of its trustees with no effective constraint on where that money can go? It would have been a very small thing for the select committee to say that there are a whole lot of useful things in the trust deed and to have said that it would approve it only if the power to “Advance the … needs or aspirations of any of the beneficiaries:” were struck out. 
What sort of trust purpose is that? What lawyer could have put hand on heart or pen to paper and certified that that was an appropriate purpose for a charitable trust? What lawyer or even parliamentary select committee could have said that it is charitable to meet the costs of research and establishment or support of whanau claims? Claims to what? To a swimming pool? Claims to what for the whanau? Claims to avoid the noise of air traffic overhead? Who knows what that means? There is no restriction of it to any kind of charitable claim. This Government is providing another tax concession and this time not just the 19 percent concession that ordinary Maori organisations have been given because of the argument that most of the beneficiaries are taxed at 19 percent; this is complete tax avoidance. There is complete exemption because of the charitable status of this trust. 
I will be very disappointed indeed given that there appears to be no prospect of an answer on these questions if the National Party or New Zealand First decides that this bill should go through. It should be returned to the select committee for answers on these matters. 
My questions are genuine questions. If someone had looked as though he or she were going to answer them we would have voted in favour because people do vote to facilitate the modernisation of a trust that clearly has outdated terms. Parekura Horomia may have an explanation—he is in the House. The Minister of Social Services and Employment who is in the House should be looking at the precedent being set here that a trust can give its money to anything instead of education. The Hon Steve Maharey also has responsibility for education and he might have a view on why $7 million which should be spent on education can be tax-free and can be given to anyone. I doubt whether John Tamihere’s Waipareira Trust would have objects as broad as this and maintain charitable status. I ask Mr Tamihere whether they are broader. Can money be donated to any beneficiary for any purpose? 
Dail Jones 
: What is the charitable trust clause? 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: The charitable trust clause— 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The question is that the motion be agreed to. All those—