Mahuta Nanaia: Māori Purposes Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMahuta Nanaia: Māori Purposes Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 15 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6624. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): I take a call to reiterate the comments of my colleague Meka Whaitiri the member for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti who has stated that Labour will support this bill in its first reading and referral to select committee. We have some questions and some reservations which may or may not be answered at that point.Wī Pere was a member of Parliament as members before me have highlighted. He served in this House in 1884-87 and then from 1893-1905. We have some questions of the Minister that we think deserve clarification once it gets to the select committee like for example: much of the intent of this bill could have been dealt with within the changes that are anticipated with Te Ture Whenua Maori Act—why is he preceding that decision or that ability to take up that pathway by having this bill go through the House? The other question is one of a substantive nature around the change in classification of land. I took some time to look into the history of the establishment of the trust and what comes forth to me is that this was a very innovative way of looking at collective Māori land ownership under the laws of the time. Wī Pere and his whānau—well he encouraged all his whānau to transfer all their estates and form a trust under the Native Land Laws Amendment Act 1897.At the time I believe that would have been quite a radical concept—to get everybody to collectivise with the specific purpose of collectivising the utilisation of the land and therefore the way in which they were going to look at improving the productivity of that land. There was a trustee—only one trustee was appointed at the time—and they were to be free from any interference from the beneficiaries of that particular land. Again it was a very innovative and interesting establishment.Reading through some of the history it is chequered with regard to how that land was managed in a freehold title. I think Walter George Foster of Wellington was the first trustee. It is interesting to track the way in which that estate was utilised—I suspect much for the benefit of the Wī Pere descendants but with a very chequered history. The reason why I draw the attention of the House to that is that in the inception of the trust there was some sense of collectivising interests under an individualised native land tenure system. The point that my colleague Meka Whaitiri makes with regard to the inherent collective aspects of having land held under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act I think still applies and it is a valid question.The other point that I wanted to draw to the attention of the House is more in the present day. Looking at the website the estate is being managed well. It was valued at approximately $35.7 million in 2003 and it has a number of commercial interests that are within its operations. That said it is really important that the beneficiaries of the Wī Pere Trust are able to influence the governance decision-making of that particular entity. Again as far as the collective aspiration and the opportunities generated from the Wī Pere Trust are concerned I would think that the select committee would pursue this with some vigour to ensure that there was widespread consultation with beneficiaries around what has tried to be achieved under this particular bill. If it has indeed been the case that beneficiaries have not been well consulted or that the new terms and conditions of the trustees have not been widely publicised amongst the beneficiary group I think that would raise some concern for the select committee but we have ample time through the submissions process to pursue questions.The changes in the bill that propose to renew the governance structure—there is some merit in that. In fact it is happening in other trusts as we speak and there are opportunities to ensure that I think greater leveraging from the estate can occur.Can I just identify with regard to the matter that the Minister raised around who has a beneficial interest that it is certainly my view that the way in which the Wī Pere Trust has been specific about who holds a beneficial interest is useful when we are looking at changes that impact on trusts of this kind. It is useful that we reaffirm that this was always the intent from its inception through to the various refinements—and the ability of the trust to operate within its contemporary context.The reason why I make mention of that is that a number of Māori members will have experienced in one way or another a range of emotional types of situations where spouses and adopted children have had such a close connection with the whenua that they have been living on and raised on but it belongs to their spouse by whakapapa and when their spouse dies they have literally no ability to continue that relationship because it is only for their lifetime interest. I have had one case that comes to mind which was particularly emotive. It pulled at my conscience to ask whether something should be done here. I land on I guess the whakapapa connections that people in this House have to their lands and actually it is probably landing in the right place—blood kin relationships to whenua tōpū must be retained at all costs and any weakening of those connections can fundamentally break down your kin connection to the area and your ability to be able to continue to I think invest back in your whenua tōpū.The Minister makes some good points. I am looking forward to this particular bill coming to the select committee and to the ability to ask submitters questions. I have highlighted a number: were beneficiaries consulted widely on the change in this trust deed and the provisions of this particular bill; why is it that the Minister introduced this bill in advance to pending changes to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act; and what ways does the Wī Pere Trust envisage that this will help to advance its economic opportunities and well as its social opportunities? I note that it funds—along with the distributions the shareholding beneficiaries—education grants and tangi grants and it is engaged in a number of social activities as well.I do not want to spend too much time on this first reading of the bill as I know that the select committee is an important part of the process. I am hoping that the Minister at some point—or a member of the Māori Party—might get up and let us know when the amendments to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act will be introduced in the House. That will be a robust debate. It is an important debate to be held but for the time being I support this bill going to the Māori Affairs Committee.