Henare Tau: Maori Trustee Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Henare Tau: Maori Trustee Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2322] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I am reminded of Sir Winston Churchill’s speech: “Never before in the field of human conflict have so many been—”. What is it? 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: “—have so many owed so much to so few.” 
Hon Mita Ririnui 
: Was he Ngapuhi? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Actually I think he was but that is another matter. “—owed so much to so few.” Do members know who those so few are? They are the beneficiaries. They are the beneficiaries that the former Minister of Maori Affairs Parekura Horomia talks about and gets it wrong. He thinks—and the Labour members think—that the beneficiaries’ money is Maori money. It is not; it never has been and never should be. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: It’s Tory money. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: It has nothing to do with Tory money; it has everything to do with Maori money and beneficiary money. There are two differences. If it is Maori money then it belongs to everybody and it belongs to all those so-called urbans. But if it is beneficiary money then it belongs to those people it comes from. It is like me saying to a trust “Well actually because you sort of represent me I’ll have some of your dividends.” But the dividends of that company or trust belong to those beneficiaries; they do not belong to anybody else. The former Minister of Maori Affairs can get up on his feet and pontificate about this being a great time but at the end of the day at the close of play and in the final analysis what that side tried to do last year was to pilfer purloin steal—whatever members want to call it—$35 million of beneficiaries’ money. That is what they tried to do and this side stopped them. This side with the help of the Maori Party and the good leadership of Dr Pita Sharples stopped them in their tracks. 
What the former Minister failed to say in his speech when he said he consulted—he consulted iwi leaders and a few other people—was that he did not consult the beneficiaries. My question is whether if Labour was truly interested in finding all of these people and getting those benefits out to the beneficiaries then why it did not call in the Inland Revenue Department or Bay Collection Agency or a place like that which within 5 seconds can find anybody apparently who owes money. The Inland Revenue Department is able to find someone who owes it money. Why not use the apparatus of the State to try to find some beneficiaries for this fund? The former Minister said it was a long-drawn-out process. Well of course it was a long-drawn-out process; Labour was in Government for 9 years. It is no wonder that it was a long-drawn-out process. But let us not quibble. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: What happened in your day? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I had only 3 years and got most of my work done. There might even be some more work to do. 
But this bill is not about me; this is about the poor beneficiary who has been waiting for the odd $400 payout and for the odd $3500 payout because he or she has had some land shares or value in land that has been held by the Maori Trustee and the Maori Trustee—not him personally but the Maori Trustee Office—has not been able to find him or her for some reason. The bill introduces a whole new level of transparency and accountability which will not go amiss in these days of hard times and the recession that is upon us. [ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If Labour members want to go outside and have a conversation they surely can but standing up and having a conversation— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. Continue with your speech. 
Hon Mita Ririnui 
: It’s not about you. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: You know it is not about me; it is really about how useless that lot were for the last 9 years. But this is not about them either; this is about an opportunity as the former Minister of Maori Affairs has said. He wants a revolving fund. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: As I was saying before I was rudely interrupted by the dinner break it is interesting that the former Minister of Maori Affairs Parekura Horomia has said that this is a great opportunity to get $35 million to set up some sort of bank some sort of revolving fund. But I ask what he was doing during the 9 years of the previous Government. If he had sequestered $5 million a year for those 9 years he would be just short of $50 million. If he had sequestered from the Budget $10 million a year he would be just short of $100 million. But what did he do in his last year of office—in the 9th year? 
Nathan Guy 
: What? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: He tried to purloin $35 million of beneficiaries’ money. He rose in the House today and had the temerity to ask us not to forget the add-on. When the Maori Affairs Committee reported to the House last year it recommended that the bill be split. The former Minister was told that time and time again. Even in the first reading of the original Maori Trustee and Maori Development Amendment Bill he was told that the provision we are discussing now was not a problem and should go through—that it was easy peasy lemon squeezy or whatever the saying is. It was an administrative issue that could have been sorted out without too much problem. 
In fact the bill would have passed in the last Parliament but the Minister was so entrenched. That led me to believe that the real reason behind Labour’s promotion of the original bill in the last Parliament was not the stand-alone transparency and accountability issues of the Maori Trustee but to get its hands on the $35 million. There is no doubt in my mind. Now when Labour members know that the Maori electorate and the electorate of New Zealand said they did not want them to come back on Monday they still have the gall to ask us to take $35 million from Maori beneficiaries to use as a revolving fund. That was the first time in 10 years that I heard the former Minister talk about a revolving fund. Why did he move so late in the piece? It is because he had nothing to show for 9 years. 
National is absolutely in favour of this bill—of having a stand-alone Maori Trustee. We support the independence—or move towards the independence—of the Maori Trustee which will hopefully one day be appointed by the Minister of Maori Affairs or some other body that is more representative than just an offshoot of Te Puni Kokiri. Who would not be in favour of that? I would be quite surprised if anybody in this House voted against the bill tonight. If it was coupled with that other rubbish then we would not be supporting it.