Hon Christopher Finlayson

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) : I listened very carefully to what the New Zealand First member Pita Paraone said about the Māori Trustee and Māori Development Amendment Bill, because much of what he said made a lot of sense. The primary issue, as I understand it from what he said, is that there is a need to take a good look at the office of the Māori Trustee. I do not disagree with him, at all, for reasons I will explain in the course of this speech. When one goes through the history of the Māori Trustee, one sees there are serious issues that need to be addressed.

The point that makes this bill unacceptable to the National Party is Part 2 and the way in which the $35 million, which has been referred to in debate, is being filched from the general purposes fund and put into this new body to be used for general Māori development. I think it is one of those issues where although one would normally support a bill to the first reading so it can be properly addressed in the select committee, one cannot do it here because the bill is odious in respect of Part 2.

As I said, some history is required. I noted in Dr Sharples’ speech that the genesis for him was in 1921 with the creation of the office of the Māori Trustee. Let me go back to 1882 and the passage of the then Native Reserves Act of 1882, which provided for the vesting of Crown administered Māori reserves in the Public Trustee. The Public Trustee was the first trustee who was appointed. The trustee had power to lease reserves and collect and distribute the resulting rents to beneficial owners after deducting expenses. The board of the Public Trust Office was extended by the appointment of two Māori trustees. My reading of the history of the Public Trustee’s involvement indicates that it was all pretty unsatisfactory. The board failed to meet regularly and did not provide an opportunity for its Māori members to represent Māori interests. In the early 20th century the majority of the accounts vested in the Public Trustee came under four principal Acts: the Native Reserves Act of 1882, as I said a few minutes ago; the Westland and Nelson Native Reserves Act of 1887; the West Coast Settlement Reserves Act of 1892; and section 185 of the Native Land Act of 1909. Because of the concerns on the part of Māori owners at the administration of their reserves by the Public Trustee, the whole issue was looked at in 1913. There was a commission into the Public Trust Office that recommended that Māori reserves and their administration be vested in an independent body. That is how the Māori Trustee was born after the First World War in 1920.

Then in 1932 an amendment Act saw the amalgamation of the office with the department itself, and under the 1932 Act the position of trustee was combined with the position of under-secretary of the department. It seems that following that time there was the elimination of all administrative signposts of independence and a gradual dissipation of the pool of expertise in the office. From the point of view of the Māori beneficiaries the situation was very unsatisfactory. As Butterworth—to whom Dr Sharples referred—said, there was little room left “for initiative or imagination and its ultimate effect was to turn the Native Trustee into a bureaucratic arm of the Department rather than a prudential financial institution and agent of his beneficiaries.” So there is no doubt that there have been concerns about the way in which the office of the Māori Trustee and its predecessor, the Public Trustee, have administered these funds for over 100 years and there are some serious issues that need to be addressed.

I know that Mr Paraone correctly referred to the summary of the role of the Māori Trustee from Te Puni Kōkiri’s website. He really emphasised the key points, and I want to emphasise them as well. The Māori Trustee is independent of the Crown; accountable to landowners and the Māori Land Court; and, as Mr Paraone said, is responsible for acting either as a trustee or as an agent for the owners of land, for collecting and paying rent and other income to owners, and for investing trust moneys. The point that needs to be emphasised time and time again is that the Māori Trustee is operating an important prudential and trustee function. He or she is not part of the Crown or subordinate to the Crown in any way whatsoever. Then one has to look at the Maori Trustee Act of 1953. Mr Paraone correctly identified that in section 23 there are a number of accounts within the Māori Trustee’s account. There is the special investment account; the common fund, which Mr Ririnui referred to; and the general purposes fund. When one looks at section 32, one sees that there are special purposes for which funds or moneys in the general purposes fund may be used, and they are set out there—for example, section 32(1)(a) states: “the trustee may advance money for the benefit of Maoris or descendants of Maoris upon such terms as to repayment as he sees fit; and upon such security (if any) as he sees fit”. Given the trustee nature of it, it is not for the benefit of Māori generally but for the Māori beneficiaries. That is the way those sections have to be read. Let us face it: the Māori Trustee is a trustee who has to look out for, in a prudential way and in accordance with the Maori Trustee Act, the interests of the beneficiaries.

So what does this bill do? I would be prepared to contemplate supporting Part 1, at least to a select committee, but Part 2 renders the bill totally unacceptable. We say that the Government needs to go back and look at it again. Part 2 establishes a new organisation called Māori Business Aotearoa New Zealand. Its functions are referred to in new section 55, inserted by clause 15. There can be no objection to setting up a body such as this to further the economic development of Māori; it is the way it is done in new section 59 that immediately makes this legislation unacceptable. The objectionable section that we place some reliance on, section 59(2), provides that the Māori Trustee must transfer, as a contribution to the fund of this new organisation, Māori Business Aotearoa New Zealand, the sum of $35 million from the general purposes fund. We say that that is an unauthorised appropriation of $35 million, which properly belongs to the beneficiaries of the Māori Trustee. These funds are not available—or should not be available—to be filched by the Government. They belong to the beneficiaries, and indeed they and no other persons are the ones who should be consulted. Sending out 49,000 letters in a general kind of way, as the Associate Minister referred to in his speech, is unacceptable.

A very important question was asked by the Hon Georgina te Heuheu when she asked what the response of New Zealanders would be if the Public Trustee’s accounts were raided to apply funds for the benefit of all New Zealanders. One simply cannot do that.

Dr Wayne Mapp: That’s a very good analogy.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Thank you, Dr Mapp. It is a good analogy. The point is that you cannot do it—and by “you” I am not meaning you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am using “you” in the sense of “one cannot do it”, because I would not contravene the Standing Orders by referring to you in person.

Hon Tau Henare: The royal “one”.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The royal “one.” So that is the objection of the National Party. This bill is badly drafted. Part 2 is odious. It cannot be referred to a select committee and tidied up, because there is nothing to tidy up. It is one of those situations where the bill should be rejected at the first reading, because what we have here is a misappropriation of $35 million out of the general purposes fund.

Let me conclude by emphasising that the bill raises some important questions. I for one, having gone through the Maori Trustee Act of 1953 and looked at the history of the Māori Trustee, think there are some very important questions that need to be addressed, particularly concerning strengthening the independence of the Māori Trustee, separating the Māori Trustee from Te Puni Kōkiri, and so on. Those sorts of issues are worthy of consideration, but Part 2 is objectionable.