Brownlee Gerry: Waka Umanga (Maori Corporations) Bill — First Reading 
Brownlee Gerry: Waka Umanga (Maori Corporations) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:644;Page:13874] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 It has been fascinating to sit in the House tonight to listen to the speeches that really do convey the sort of Uncle—and Auntie—Tom approach that so many political parties have towards Maori in this country. The most disappointing speeches of all have come from the Maori Party itself. 
I recall that the Maori Party was established because the group who established that party did not like the foreshore and seabed legislation. They went from one end of the country to the other saying that that was the worst form of colonial suppression and land-grab upon Maori ever seen. They enlisted the support of Maori up and down the country on the basis that they were going to have some sort of new renaissance for Maori for Maori leadership and for Maori governance in this country. Then they came trotting into this House tonight voting for a bill like this which confirms all of the worst aspects of the way Maori have been treated in this country since the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi. 
This is a bill that simply puts a Maori name on the institutions of the colonial Government and of the modern New Zealand Government and makes Maori say “Forget about all of your iwi affiliations and all of your traditional ways of doing things and fall into line with the way we expect the law to be administered in this country.” which is in total disregard of Maori culture and the history that Maori have always had in this country. It absolutely staggers me. I think it is amazing that we have so much law in this country specifically for Maori. There are those out there who say “Well if you start saying that you are somehow a racist. You’re picking on Maori.” 
But the worst finger that goes on Maori in this country comes from this country’s statutes themselves. There are so many laws specific to Maori. I cannot understand why normal property laws if we are to adopt them have to be so different for them—and Maori have adopted them by the way; they say “Yep OK we’re going to go with those.” Why does there have to be a separate court for Maori to go to? Why do we have to have a different name for some sort of Maori trust structure? Why do we have to have different arrangements for communally owned property for Maori? These are simple points and it staggers me that Maori are standing up in the House tonight one after the other saying “We think this is a great thing.” 
We know that Mr Parekura Horomia is basically not a bad bloke. But he is hell-bent and determined upon doing the business of his political party which has always been about making Maori subservient to its political views. Absolutely! If we take just a few moments to look at serious progress in the last couple of decades for Maori we see that none of it has been about imposing control on Maori; all of it has been about saying “Take the lead that you know you can and get on with it.” I find it amazing that somehow the National Party is the villain in tonight’s debate when in fact it has been the National Party that has been so willing in the last couple of decades to address Treaty of Waitangi issues to recognise that there was grievance and also to step outside the circle and say “There is a group of people in this country who can do well for themselves so let’s create an environment in which they can do it.” 
What really is irritating is that some of the advantages that will come to the country in a wider sense from that approach will be lost if we keep driving down the lines of this sort of legislation. I give the House one simple example of that. In 1992 there was the fisheries settlement. There are a couple of interesting things about that. Firstly at that point no one really knew how big the fishery was. It was just out there and there were people fishing it and there were foreigners coming in doing joint ventures and cleaning out the seas left right and centre. Occasionally a new species was found. That was fished to death and let go. So there was a decision to say “Let’s put some sort of a quota and some sort of a boundary around what we catch in our seas.” “Let us be fair about it and say that there is a traditional fishery via the Maori in this country.” and “Just for simple purposes let’s allocate among this artificial quota 20 percent for Maori.” 
What has been the effect of that? The effect has been that New Zealand has remained in control of its fishery and that Maori now control more than 50 percent of that fishery. It has been acquired by commercial means and through good practice and it is also maintaining an industry that could easily have been lost to this country. That is an advantage not just to Maori but to the whole country. That was a simple simple exercise that recognised a group of people who had an interest and a capacity to look after something that was of use and value for the entire country. It was perhaps the best exercise of a property right we have ever seen post-1840. 
Now we come down to this particular bill. I remember my time on the Maori Affairs Committee where we had numerous occasions to talk to Maori trust boards left right and centre and numerous occasions to haul in the Maori Trustee—a heck of a nice chap but doing a hell of a job. Huge amounts of land inside this country were owned by Maori but were of no use to them because no one was looking after the land. Here we have a bill that simply puts a flash name over the top—Waka Umanga a Maori name—but the bill perpetuates exactly the same sort of uselessness that has bedevilled Maori for years for decades ever since the Treaty of Waitangi. I do not think one speaker who spoke in favour of this bill tonight has given one positive reason why the House should support it. 
I want to know if some of those people out there who maybe have even a minuscule interest in some Maori land will be advantaged by this bill. The answer is no; they will not. Nothing will change. The people who have managed to get themselves into a position inside the Maori structure and who have then used the law of the land with the exclusions it has particularly for Maori will continue to control those assets and the benefit from them. But I do not know how Parekura Horomia who I said before is a good bloke can reasonably say that this bill represents progress for Maori. 
Let me go through the rest of this bill. We have titles like “Governance”. Well I would have thought that it is no business of this Parliament how a group of people who own property should structure their governance. No one tells me how to do that. No one tells me how I have to own my property. No one tells any others who are individuals in this country the way to own their property and the way to run it. But oh no the Maori—well they are a little bit thick a little bit dim a little bit slow so we had better have a special law for them! It is the worst form of Uncle Tom patronisation that we could possibly get. 
Metiria Turei 
: Iwi Kiwi! Orewa speech! Maori special privilege! 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I get sick to death of people who happen to have a Maori name railing against the idea that Maori might make progress simply because they have their own perverted view of what democracy means. 
As I go through this bill I look at terms like “public good outcomes”. Well there is always a public good outcome from the ownership of property if it is well administered. Why does it have to be recognised in a bill specifically for Maori? I look further through the bill and I see terms such as “Governance management and other matters relevant to registered waka umanga”. Why does this have to be so different for Maori from any other form of ownership of assets? Why is it that Maori apparently cannot make up their minds and cannot make their own decisions? Why do they have to be patronised and held by the hand? 
My experience of looking at good Treaty settlement processes over the last 20 years has been that Maori will prosper extremely well. I come from the South Island. We have only one tribe down there and— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but his time has expired.