Hereora Dave: Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Hereora Dave: Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15820] 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 I will start off by acknowledging in Part 1 of the Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) the Maniapoto Maori Trust Board Act and to say that Te Puni Kokiri and the Minister of Maori Affairs have been working with the trust since 2003 on the proposal to establish a new regional management committee to represent the marae of Kawhia Harbour and the five marae that seek the establishment of a new regional management committee for the Kawhia Harbour region. The trust board has organised regular hui to consult with the marae members on the proposal and to provide a demonstration of sufficient support for a new regional management committee for Kawhia Harbour. 
Earlier I raised an issue in relation to this matter and I will recollect my thoughts on it and share with the Committee the information that some submitters opposed the bill’s proposal to establish a new regional management committee for Kawhia Harbour to represent Te Mahoe Pa and Mokai Kainga marae. On hearing from these submitters the Maori Affairs Committee asked the officials to seek the views of the Maniapoto Maori Trust Board which requested this amendment and the views of representatives of the two marae at issue. It was clear to the committee on hearing from the trust board and representatives of Te Mahoe Pa and Mokai Kainga marae that these marae wanted to be represented by a new regional management committee and that the submissions received were not supported. To that end I acknowledge the request of the Minister of Maori Affairs that the committee consider correcting its report to accurately describe who was consulted on this issue. I gave a commitment that I would take that request back to the committee for its consideration. 
The committee in its deliberation yesterday considered this matter. After some robust discussion we felt that the commentary as presented to the House was not in need of correction and the basis for that generally surrounded one’s interpretation of the report. But the committee felt that if there were a need to rectify this issue then there would be a number of options at our disposal to do so. Of those options the committee felt that it would probably make good sense to raise the matter in the Committee of the whole House stage and to say that in considering this concern the select committee felt that the issue came back to one’s interpretation of the commentary and where that sat. 
To that end the select committee felt that the issue would not impede the progress of the bill and it is my understanding that there was support and that there continues to be support for this bill. Again I suppose it was an issue surrounding the point of whether there was a need to revisit the situation by bringing back to this House an amended version of the commentary. As I have stated earlier the committee’s consensus decision on the matter was that we would raise this issue at the Committee stage and formally subscribe to the fact that we have agreed that there was no intention to misinterpret the findings within that report and that it was left to one’s individual determination as to where that interpretation sat. 
Overall we are still quite pleased with this bill as it is in the Committee stage particularly with Part 1 and we are pleased with its progress. I stand in support of the bill. 
Part 1 agreed to.