Maori Purposes Bill — In Committee 
Maori Purposes Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:636;Page:6965] 
Maori Purposes Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 In the last few remaining moments before the House suspends for its well-earned tea break I would just like to make some initial comments about Part 1. This part deals with the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act particularly around the issues to do with delegations to the Deputy Chief Judge and if I am correct around the judge who did not have his warrant but was sitting and hearing cases and was not eligible to do so. 
I know that although the debate on this question has not been particularly severe or overexcited there are real issues here around the principles of justice that are worthwhile highlighting. I know for example that the Law Commission is very concerned about some of these provisions that retrospectively validate the decisions of the judge who was sitting without a warrant. He was sitting on a large number of cases. It was not just a few cases and on a few days at which point somebody realised there was a mistake and it needed to be fixed; he sat on as far as I am aware 60-odd cases— 
Pita Paraone 
: 80. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: My learned friend tells me 80 cases. So there are real questions around the justice for those people particularly those who lost in those circumstances—those who took cases were heard by this judge and were not successful—and whether their rights have been infringed because there was no validity to the process. They were not properly in the court and dealt with properly by the judge. Those people do have a legitimate case for concern that they did not get justice in the court because the court was not operating lawfully in those circumstances. I have real concerns for them and for the effects that the judgments may have had on them. In some of the cases given that there were 60 in a quite short period of time—a month actually; 60 cases in 30 days—they were not enormous and not particularly time consuming but they were important to the people who brought them to the court looking for justice in a right and proper process. 
I think it is important that this Committee if it is going to pass this legislation and this part acknowledges that those people have had their rights to justice interfered with. That is a fair enough thing to say. If the Committee agrees that this provision should pass then it needs to be very very clear that it has very good reasons for doing so. Part of those reasons would be the justice implications for those who won in those cases. They were successful and have relied on the validity of that decision since it was made and these are decisions that were made 6 years ago in 2000. 
The consequences of that decision could well be economic given that we are talking here about Maori land decisions. They could be to do with issues such as succession and whether shares and land should be transferred or shared between certain members of the family or whanau and people could have made plans and arrangements because of the decisions that were made. To interfere with that now after such a long period of time because of a mistake made by the justice bureaucracy—the court itself and those who oversee the validity of warrants of judges—is in itself an interference with the proper process and with their rights to rely on the court. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 My apologies Madam Chair. I was expecting to hear from the new Maori affairs spokesperson from the second-largest party in this House but obviously the new leadership has kicked in and there does not seem to be any interest in this bill. 
I stand to take a call on this part and I want to pick up on a comment made by the last speaker when reference was made to rights to justice being interfered with in relation particularly to some orders made by a former judge of the Maori Land Court—and can I say a very eminent member of the judiciary at the time—Judge Norman Smith. I am not quite sure but I believe it was he himself who brought it to the attention of the authorities that his warrant had expired. That is point No. 1. 
Secondly I question whether the rights to justice of people whose cases were affected by the decision of that judge had been interfered with. In any of those cases if the applicant was concerned about the final decision made by the court then he or she certainly still had the opportunity to follow due process. The fact that the judge was honest enough to recognise an oversight in terms of the renewal of his warrant is not a case I believe to suggest that rights to justice were interfered with. 
The other issue I want to refer to in this part is the exercising of special powers being delegated from the Chief Judge to the Deputy Chief Judge. During the second reading I made reference to the point that the need to do that is possibly a result of the fact that the Chief Judge is currently also chairman of the Waitangi Tribunal and that this extra duty has some impact on his ability to carry out his duties. But I was reminded by my caucus colleagues that because we are human we also get sick from time to time and if the Chief Judge were to take ill who would carry out his duties while he was off work? So we support the idea of the Chief Judge being able to delegate his authority to the Deputy Chief Judge. 
Although we did express some concern about the notion of validation legislation I think that in the case I detailed earlier and based on the advice given to us by officials during the select committee process we do not think that such validation would have any impact on the orders that were made by the judge at the time. 
I stand on behalf of New Zealand First to say that we support this part of the bill. Kia ora. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I am very pleased to be here to take a call in the Committee stage of the Maori Purposes Bill. I turn immediately to Part 1 which has three or four main points as I am sure members of the Committee have already spoken about. I want to make a comment on at least two of those. 
Clause 4 deals with the appointment of judges—increasing the permanent judge membership of the Maori Land Court from eight to 14. National supports that but we raise the concern that first of all an increase in the judiciary requires a corresponding increase I would imagine in resources. We did not receive any confirmation that that would necessarily follow. The other thing is that while no doubt someone did some work on the number of judges that might be required we are told that 14 would not be appointed to the court at once or an extra six but that as they were needed others would be appointed. 
I stress that although it is all very well anticipating an increase in workload it seems to me at least that the way the Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd has been allocating the assets in respect of Maori fisheries is running reasonably smoothly. Of course there is the other jurisdiction around the foreshore and seabed. 
As I say we recognise that there is probably a good reason for the increase in judges but we would wish to see some corresponding increase in resources should it prove necessary to increase the number to 14. It is no use having judges sitting there without the necessary support. 
I turn to clause 5 which enables the Chief Judge to delegate to the Deputy Chief Judge some or all of his or her functions powers and duties conferred by the Act. Again at the Maori Affairs Committee we had questions about that and asked the officials whether this was something that happens in other jurisdictions. If I recall correctly although an express provision of this nature does not necessarily apply in other parts of the judiciary nevertheless there is an understanding that there is statutory power for the next senior judge of any other court to take over if the Chief Judge is away. 
There are legitimate reasons why a deputy should have the powers of the Chief Judge and those were set out as things like illness or when a Chief Judge is prevented from exercising duties because he or she is not able to be there. If I remember the officials’ advice correctly one of the reasons it was deemed necessary for these powers to be given to the deputy was the dual role of the Chief Judge who is also chairman of the Waitangi Tribunal. Of course New Zealand First has a bill on this very matter relating to conflict. So the delegation provision seems a reasonable thing to do but again it was not without some reasonably investigative discussion in the committee. 
The part that concerns National most is the provision that validates the 83 decisions of former Deputy Chief Judge Norman Smith. He basically acted without a warrant. His warrant had expired but he continued to make certain decisions in any event. We added a note into the commentary on the report back. Although some of the committee considered that retrospective validation is justified the National Party does not agree with the use of retrospective legislation to validate the types of decisions in this particular case. 
 In other words what has happened is that the parties who were the subjects of those cases before Norman Smith actually had no idea that he was acting without a warrant at the time. Although that may not in the long run make any difference none the less we do not think that the way this matter has been approached is desirable. The jury is still out for us as to whether we support this provision. He just carried on making decisions. Someone was remiss in not realising that Judge Norman Smith was acting outside his warrant. That is not good; really it should not be tolerated. We have now come in the form of this bill to validate his decisions. As I say National has real difficulty with that. 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: What do you think should be done about it Georgie? 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: My friend on the other side of the House Dover Samuels is singing out about what I think should be done about it. Well we had some suggestions at the Maori Affairs Committee. We did ask the officials whether they had gone back to the parties against whom and in favour of whom these decisions had been made. We thought that was a reasonable thing to do but the officials did not think so simply because time has now elapsed and certain parties to the actions have acted on those decisions. Yes that is an explanation but it does not necessarily make it right. I hope the Maori Land Court is watchful in the future and does not let this sort of thing happen again even though there is now provision to cover this sort of eventuality. 
The other provisions in Part 1 are around—and my friend Pita Paraone was talking about this just a minute ago—the Deputy Chief Judge being able to exercise the powers of the Chief Judge. The explanation given as to why this should be so is that judges have a certain workload and a certain distinctiveness. Officials can always give a good reason for some of these things but I do not know whether the reasons are always logical or necessarily appropriate. 
However the provision in Part 1 that National has most concern about is that relating to the validation of Norman Smith’s decisions. I hope that once the bill goes through officials of Te Puni Kokiri will consider writing at that stage to the persons affected anyway. I cannot remember whether we asked the officials to do that but the Minister of Maori Affairs might like to get to his feet and tell us whether there is any plan for the officials to let people know what has happened. The decisions will have been validated but I think that if nothing else it is pure courtesy to let those people know what has happened. There is provision I understand for the decisions to be reheard if the parties want. Perhaps the Minister could give some assurance that he will treat this matter in at least a courteous fashion and instruct his officials to write to the parties concerned to let them know what has happened. Perhaps he would like to take a call to let us know that. 
The other thing the Minister might like to take a call on is the actual position of the Chief Judge. Right now I understand the Chief Judge is sitting on only one tribunal claim. It seems to me in the context of his sitting on only one Waitangi Tribunal claim—flora and fauna—that he does not seem to be particularly busy. Maybe the Minister could give us some backing by saying that. I remember that when I was sitting on the tribunal Chief Judge Eddie Durie was extremely busy. So perhaps the Minister might like to take a call and explain why those provisions are necessary. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Chair. Tena tatou katoa. E te Minita tena koe i tenei po. I want to make just a few points. 
Darren Hughes 
: Te wepu. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: Tena koe e te wepu o tera taha o te Whare. Kia ora tatou. 
[ 
Greetings to you the whip on that side of the Chamber 
.] 
I will make a couple of points in respect of this bill. Firstly I repeat for the Minister that the difficulty with these sorts of bills for people like me is that we are pulling together a number of different things under one bill and we have to vote on a whole set of complex issues. It seems to me that pulling together provisions about fish Treaty claims and judges is a pretty difficult exercise to follow through and one would have hoped that we would split up these provisions. The difficulty with this sort of bill is that there are some good points that could be helpful to our people and there are some obviously that need a lot of work. That came through in the submission process. That is the first point. 
We want to comment on other points and I will run through them quickly. The notion of the appointment of judges and the lifting of the number of judges is a good idea. We support the notion in clause 4 and we have no problem with the notion in clause 5 of the Chief Judge and the Deputy Chief Judge working together where the powers of delegation are followed through. 
Metiria Turei and others have noted concerns in respect of decisions made by Judge Norman Smith and we support those comments. Georgina te Heuheu has raised those issues as well. The validation of his decisions creates a lousy precedent and we need to take heed in the future. I also support the notion that Metiria Turei raised in respect of the decisions already made. It seems that the Maori Affairs Committee gave the issue a fair bit of discussion and felt that there was no going back on those decisions. Suffice it to say the Maori Party signals a concern about this sort of precedent and hopes that it will not happen again. 
I draw the Committee’s attention to an amendment that the Maori Party has put on the Table for consideration. It is to do with the issue of the appointment of judges. Another amendment has to do with the extension of judges’ warrants so that they can practise not just in the Maori Land Court but also in the other courts. There is a recommendation on the Table relating to this and I would like members to look at that. It would broaden the judges’ scope and extend their warrants so that they can practise not only in the Maori Land Court but also in the District Court. The recommendation relates to clause 4. We suggest adding a new subsection (8) to section 7 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act which clause 4 amends. The new subsection states: “(8) Any Judge appointed under subsection (1) may also preside in a District Court if agreed by the Chief Judge.” That is our recommendation. 
The reason is that we believe the judges’ expertise should not be limited simply to land issues. The judges bring a particular element of expertise in tikanga Maori that would also pay dividends in respect of their practice in the District Court. I would like the Minister and other members to consider this amendment. We feel that this amendment would enable a good spread of expertise across the court system and would allow us to use the expertise of those judges who in particular have an acknowledged background in tikanga Maori. 
 So those are some of the points that I put before the Minister. The main one of course is simply about supporting the concerns other members have raised. Secondly our concerns are basically about the pulling together of a number of bills into the one place when in fact some of them could have been separated out—in particular the various clauses around the Treaty of Waitangi that cause concern. We will be speaking to that issue shortly. 
Finally I put to the House the recommendation that is on the Table in respect of allowing the jurisdiction of Maori Land Court judges with the agreement of the Chief Judge to extend to the District Court. So I leave that recommendation for the Minister and hopefully he will provide some sort of response to it. Kia ora tatou. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 Several submissions on the Maori Purposes Bill commented that the workload of the Maori Land Court was already heavy and that delays were being experienced. Although Te Ture Whenua Maori Act allows temporary judges to be appointed permanent appointments are needed to address ongoing work levels. The intention is not to appoint six extra judges immediately but to make additional appointments in stages. At present the court is operating with a full complement of eight judges plus an additional two temporary judges. 
In relation to the retrospective legislation very careful consideration was given to the need to validate Judge Smith’s decisions. It is the best way of providing certainty to the applicants and other parties concerned. The decisions were made by an experienced former Deputy Chief Judge for a short period after the expiry of his temporary warrant. There are no issues about the judge’s expertise or competence. Individuals and their families should not be left open to the stress and expense of other action. It is important to mention that this provision is not groundbreaking. Legislation of this kind is needed from time to time. In regard to the Maori Land Court in 1991 the Government of the day National passed retrospective legislation to validate decisions of Judge McHugh. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 I am not too sure whether this is the appropriate time but I was hoping that the Minister the Hon Parekura Horomia might respond to the notion of extending the warrant of Maori Land Court judges. I stand up and offer him the opportunity again to have a go at that one bearing in mind that if we are talking about workload—and he just provided some background to that—one would support that notion. Surely extending warrants a little bit wider—if they are required—might help with that situation. Of course it is always in the hands of the Chief Judge. I stand to encourage the Minister to respond to that notion if he can. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 In talking to the proposed amendment I say that it does raise a particular issue for me. If we support this amendment as proposed by the Maori Party it begs the question whether the exchange will be a two-way one. I am not quite sure whether in fact the Maori Party would appreciate a number of non-Maori judges presiding in the Maori Land Court making decisions that will affect Maori. When I say that I want to make it clear that I am not critical about the appointment of non-Maori to the Maori Land Court jurisdiction because I believe that race should not be an issue and that we do get the best people presiding on matters such as Maori land. I am not sure that this is the intent of this amendment but on the face of it I cannot see New Zealand First supporting it. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I want to comment on Te Ururoa Flavell’s amendment although it is actually Minister Parekura Horomia’s job to rebut it as this bill is in his name. I do not believe that the member Te Ururoa Flavell’s proposed amendment is in order. It seems to me to be outside the scope of this bill. I raise the question that if the stated reason for increasing the number of judges from eight to 14 is an increase in their workload—and we are talking about their workload in the Maori Land Court—then why would anybody in his or her right mind consider that we allow the Maori Land Court judges to also sit in the District Court? That seems to make no sense at all; it is totally illogical. I have already questioned whether there is sufficient workload at this point in time to warrant an increase in the number of judges. There may be in the future; we probably think that there may be. But the fact is that the allocation of fisheries in regard to that aspect of an increased workload seems to be going reasonably well anyway. 
Maybe our anticipating the need for this increase may come to nothing in the end. But as I say the stated reason for this increase in the number of judges is the increase in their workload. In my view it is absolutely a nonsense that a suggestion should be made that they also sit in the District Court. 
I comment on the point that Pita Paraone made as well which is whether that would then mean that someone would seek a corresponding crossover. I do not even have to raise the issue of whether we are talking about Maori judges or Pakeha judges; the reality is that the jurisdiction is different. National would not support this amendment on the grounds that it is totally illogical with regard to the purpose stated in the bill. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to Clause 4 be agreed to: 
to add as subclause (2) the following subclause: 
(2)Section 7 is amended by adding the following subsection: 
“(8)Any judge appointed under subsection (1) may also preside in a District Court if agreed to by the Chief Judge.” 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Noes 107 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 46; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 46; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 Part 2 of the Maori Purposes Bill deals with amendments to the Treaty of Waitangi Act. The majority of submissions received that opposed the bill were in respect of this part. It deals with a closing date for submissions to the Waitangi Tribunal of historical claims. The date set is 1 September 2008. 
National supports this part and we certainly support the setting of a closing-off date for the lodging of historical claims. In fact if I recall correctly we were the first party to suggest this provision back in 2002 and it was part of our Treaty of Waitangi policy. The National Party having raised the issue early on—and now other parties see the sense in it—takes credit for the provision. But that is no surprise anyway given that the settlement process was largely kicked off by our party in the 1990s. 
Given that there were objections to this part I think it is very important that we state why we support it. Firstly we should be very very clear that we are talking about only the lodging of claims—the submission of historical claims to the Waitangi Tribunal. Historical claims are defined as encompassing claims relating to events occurring before 21 September 1992. That date has been properly chosen in my view because that was the date on which the Government of the day—again the National Government—under Sir Douglas Graham settled upon the principles to guide the settlement of Treaty claims. The intention of this provision is to provide certainty to not only the tribunal but also claimants around first of all what constitutes a historical Treaty claim. I understand that the Maori Party member Te Ururoa Flavell said yesterday in his report-back speech something to the effect that this is the first time that date had arisen. Indeed it is not. Back then in 1992 historical claims were deemed to be those occurring before 21 September 1992. 
The main reason for introducing a closing-off date is the issue around certainty—certainty for the tribunal certainty for Governments whoever the Government is and certainty for the claimants. My experience as a member of the Waitangi Tribunal was that the major tribal claim would be lodged well in advance—most were lodged in the 1980s. But in the way that the tribunal approaches and hears claims and I hope in the way that the Office of Treaty Settlements guides the Government in settling the claims there is always a possibility for claims—usually minor in nature though not insignificant to the parties involved—to arise in the course of hearings. I suggest that most historical claims are now known. 
I guess if the claims are not known then that puts a difficulty in the way of those planning for some end in sight to this process as to how they should plan for that time. If those claims are not known then it is extremely unlikely in my view—after sitting on the tribunal as a member some 10 years ago—that they would not become known anyway as part of the bigger claim. These minor claims would not necessarily constitute a claim by themselves but most historic matters would be revealed during the hearing of a claim. National supports this part and we think it is proper. 
Amendments are being proposed by both the Green Party and the Maori Party for other dates. I have looked at those amendments and National will not support them. None of them actually make sense in terms of the way the settlement process has proceeded. But I guess if one has never been in Government then sometimes one has a bit of difficulty in seeing the sense in some of these issues. No doubt my colleagues to the back of the Chamber will have something to say about that comment. When one is in Government one actually has to govern—that is the point—to the best of one’s ability in the best interests of all New Zealanders. 
Pita Paraone 
: What about when you’re in Opposition? 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: In Opposition one can advocate the same principle—that is the point. Whether I am sitting over there or over here it is the principle that matters. The principle is that at some stage we need to have some forward-thinking about how we might bring this whole claims process to a logical and durable conclusion. In my view if one is in Government the only way to see a light ahead is to know what one is dealing with. For as long as there is no closing-off date for the lodging of claims we will never know what is ahead of us. That does not make for good efficient planning in Government. New Zealand First having been sort of in Government or perhaps in Government right now—whatever New Zealand First is—will have a sense of this anyway. New Zealand First was certainly in Government in 1996 in coalition with National so it will have a sense of the need to be able to plan to be able to see a light ahead and to be able to adjust the necessary resources in order to get that process working to a proper time frame. 
Of course when National is in Government in 2 years’ time it will put some proper resources into the Waitangi Tribunal because if there is a bit of a hole in the thing right now it is right there. The tribunal has been starved of funding under a Labour Government so it is no wonder that the tribunal sort of crawls along. We will make sure that the tribunal is properly resourced so that we can give claimants some confidence that their claims are moving along and so that they see the sense in there being some sort of finality to the process. That is what is happening with that. A statement in our report back basically says that in the interests of a more timely settlement of historic claims a closure date for the submissions of claim is warranted and we certainly support that. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I really need to take issue with some of the things that the National spokesperson has mentioned though I would like to welcome her back to the fold in terms of Maori affairs portfolios and issues. It is great to have a Maori from National back again in the role of Maori affairs spokesperson. 
I take issue with the question of certainty that was raised by the last speaker. Her view that this Treaty settlement deadline gives certainty to the Waitangi Tribunal to claimants and to the Government is of course complete rubbish. The tribunal did not come to the Government and ask for a Treaty settlement deadline in order to make its process easier. The tribunal has no interest in a deadline. As far as I can tell from all the submissions we received there was no indication from the tribunal at all that a deadline would be of any use to it. 
Actually the deadline raises real questions given that it is set so soon. There is an argument that it is only in relation to historical claims and that people can lodge broad generic claims with the tribunal which they can then fill in later with the research and the historical work they will need in order to make the claim viable in the future—that they can do that after they have lodged the claim and that that will be all right. The tribunal will suffer from a ridiculous false economy by having large numbers of incomplete and not particularly well-researched claims lodged with it in a big huge rush. It will then once the deadline comes about have to sort through those claims and wait for the claimants to be properly prepared to progress their claims. 
So in a few years’ time after the settlement date of 2008 there will be real bureaucratic problems in dealing with the management of the claims that are not ready to proceed because they should never have been put there in the first place as they were not ready to proceed. This deadline will not be advantageous to the tribunal at all. It will not assist the tribunal in its planning because it will not be able to progress claims properly in a well-researched and well-prepared manner. It is a totally false economy for the tribunal and it will do it no good. The tribunal certainly did not ask for a deadline so there is no justification for saying it will be better for the tribunal than the present situation. 
And the deadline is certainly not a better proposition for claimants either—absolutely not. The majority of submissions that the Maori Affairs Committee received on the bill were about that particular point. Of those submissions by far the majority were completely opposed to the settlement deadline. It has been said before and I am sure it will be said repeatedly tonight that there has been no consultation with claimants or potential claimants about the deadline. There is no evidence at all before the select committee in front of the Government or anywhere else that shows that a deadline will be beneficial to claimants—nothing; no evidence; no submissions; nothing. The fact is that a deadline is not beneficial to claimants. This is a political sop put in place by Labour because National was running its race hate rhetoric which I talked about last night. It has nothing to do with making sure that claimants have a better opportunity to progress their historical claims through a tribunal process that is designed to redress those and provide justice. 
This measure does not provide certainty to claimants; the situation becomes even more uncertain for them. Claimants will now have to find ways to manipulate the process by making claims fit within at least some kind of historical claim definition before 2008. They will have to look for things very quickly to put in their claim which they can then back up with research later. They will have to hope that their claim is comprehensive enough with no research no resources and no assistance to prepare it and hope that later on after the deadline is over they will be able to find the information to back up their claim. So this deadline will put claimants under considerably more stress. 
I note also the issue around most claims being known which was mentioned by the National spokesperson. That is not true either. The fact is that most of the claims that have come before the tribunal are those that were relatively obvious—that is fine—but they are not the ones that smaller hapu in particular will already know about and would then have been able to put forward in due course. Lots and lots of smaller hapu in this country do not have resources to submit claims. Often those hapu do not have particularly old old people either who have historical knowledge. We have to remember as was mentioned earlier today that the death rate for Maori is extremely high so we do not have lots of older people who have the necessary historical knowledge. There are whole families whose oldest member might be 60 years old. They will not have the information they need to set out the facts about the history of their land loss in the kind of detail that is needed by the tribunal. Instead a lot more other professional work would have to be done to enable them to prepare their claims. They are the ones who will miss out. 
The tribunal process was set up to provide a system of redress and justice for exactly those people—for those who do not have access to the courts and who do not have huge amounts of money. It was designed to be an easily accessible process for Maori. But if we put in a deadline like the 2008 deadline that we have here it will prevent the people who have the least access to justice from ever getting any so it will completely ruin the process. The whole point of the tribunal will then be lost. 
It is true that the tribunal process and settlement negotiations take a reasonable amount of time. We have had close to 170 years’ worth of wrongs committed against Maori and of the theft of land through legislation and other means—all of the things that everybody in this Parliament knows about. We cannot expect all of those claims all of those wrongs and all of those issues to come to light in just a few years. It has been only 10 years or so since we began to deal with the Treaty claims and negotiations process in an effective and a clearer way. The process cannot be run quickly and we cannot expect that it would. We should spend a lot more time on allowing the tribunal process to continue to develop and evolve to provide the best possible framework for providing justice to the victims of these crimes for whom it was designed. 
Instead we have a Government—it has been successive Governments actually; it does not matter whether it is a National or a Labour Government—that is trying to find ways to close down the process because it is costly and because it makes it obvious that the Government continues to undermine Maori progression and development over time. It is true that what happened is a horrible memory. When the settlements come before Parliament we can see that they show real horrors from our history. They are not pleasant but this country and this Parliament have to take responsibility for what happened. We have to be mature enough to cope with those histories and deal with the fact that those awful things happened. We should not be frightened of doing that. 
We should allow the process to occur. Otherwise we will end up doing the same old thing that we always do in Parliament in Government and in our country: trying to hide from the facts and making the situation worse. That is what we are doing here. This deadline is part of the process of denying justice in a system that is set up to provide it out of expediency because it is cheaper and easier for the Government to do so. I completely agree with the National spokesperson that the deadline provides certainty for the Government—absolutely it does. But the tribunal system is not set up for the benefit of the Government; it is set up for the benefit of the victims of wrongs—the victims of crime. They should be the priority in any process. 
I have three amendments to this part in my name. One of them changes the closing date for the deadline to 2050 which is a little over 200 years from the time when the Treaty of Waitangi was signed. That is fair enough. It gives us another 50-odd years to deal with the claims that are coming through. It gives us another generation’s worth of time to work through the complexity of the Treaty process. Some claims are taking over 10 to 15 years to prepare and some settlements are taking close to that time as well. The people to whom justice is directed need to have time to work through that. That is one of the changes I would like to see made to the bill. 
The second amendment is to omit the date of 1992 at which claims become historical and replace it with 1 January 1841. That gives the Government a year after the signing of the Treaty. It can have a year in which we will accept that the Treaty was intended to be honoured. After that all of the things the Government did and refused to do all of the mistakes it has made would become contemporary claims. Then the deadline is irrelevant. That is the point. The things that the Government has done or that its representatives have done in the past need to be held to account. We can be mature enough and grown-up enough to take responsibility for them. That is our role as parliamentarians and citizens of this country which should be a bicultural country where two nations try to work together to deal with the issues. That change in the date will help to set the matter back and give us a clearer idea. This country is only 160-odd years old. It is actually a very young country in its current form. To say that all of the claims for what occurred prior to 1992 are historical and will become irrelevant to the tribunal process after 2008 is crazy. It is a crazy idea so I have an amendment to change the date at which claims become historical to 1841. It is another way of showing that these are contemporary claims that they are contemporary issues and that they are real and live for people. 
Earlier I was talking about many communities not having elders who have the memory or the confidence to talk about the things that happened to them their families and their grandparents in the past. Those things are live issues for the communities that live now. They are not historical for them because they suffer the effects of the very same crimes that were committed against them. So to them the issues are not historical but are contemporary; they are right now and people suffer them all day every day. We see that reflected in their daily lives. Therefore it is wrong to suggest that the things that were done to them—the crimes committed against them—are historical crimes. 
Finally I have an amendment to the bill that will delete the Treaty deadline process altogether because it was never a good idea. I can hear the National spokesperson taking credit for it. She should not take credit for it; this deadline is an act of overt racism and no one should proudly take credit for that kind of act in this Parliament in 2006. We should be a much more grown-up environment than that. We know how to deal with these claims justly. There are other models of it happening all around the world where crimes have been committed against indigenous people and people are being held to account for them. Governments and processes have been held to account. We are a leader in large part in those kinds of models. We should be proud that our models work. We should fix the bits that need to be fixed but we should never be proud of instituting blockages and processes that then interfere entirely with the process and with access to justice. 
This is not a proud moment for us at all. I urge all members of this House to seriously reconsider their position on this bill and to vote in favour of my amendment or if not my amendment then the Maori Party’s amendment to delete the Treaty settlement deadline. The deadline is not a fair thing to do. It is not good policy. It was never a good idea. It is a racist thing to do and it must be stopped. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Listening to the last speaker I despair. If things are as bad as that then I can understand why people want special privileges for a certain sector of our country. To describe New Zealand First and me as overt racists because we support Part 2 of the Maori Purposes Bill is I think scraping the bottom of the barrel. I am quite clear in my mind and I say this on behalf of our party that this country needs to go forward and look in anticipation to what the future holds for us. The provisions of Part 2 are a big step towards achieving that very goal. 
I am very fortunate that one of my parents is still alive. He is 90 years old and he knows the history of his people. Yet every day he exhorts his children and those of his brothers and sisters to look forward and not go back to the ills of the past. I suggest to the Committee that Part 2 goes a long way towards addressing the very wish that people like my father have for this country and the path they would like it to go down. 
The previous speaker said that if we adhered to the suggestion of enforcing a closure date of 2008 that would be justice denied because a lot of people would not have the opportunity to provide the history on which they would base their claims. Perhaps the reason why my father is still alive is that he wants to look forward. That is point No. 1. Point No. 2 is this. After listening to the speeches of members of some parties in this House I would suggest that Maori already have a good knowledge of the so-called ills they have had to endure. To me 2008 is a real compromise; my party suggested that the closing-off date should be 2010. 
Part of the reason for the concern that came through from many submitters was I believe that they misunderstood the intent of Part 2. They thought that all their applications needed to be in order before lodging their claims. I repeat that this part of the bill concerns only the lodgment of claims. People still have the opportunity to do the necessary research required to complete their full claims. I would be very concerned if 2008 was the date on which all claims were to be settled because then there would be the argument that claims were being dealt with just to meet the expediency of the bureaucracy. It is not the first time I have made that comment in this House. 
Part 2 is specifically designed to give some certainty to Maori—quite rightly as expressed by the previous speaker—certainty to the Crown but more important certainty to this country. There is no way I want to leave a legacy for my grandchildren that means they will have to continue this battle when we could have addressed the issue and provided a much easier path for them to face. Any notion of moving the closing-off date in terms of historical claims back to 1 January 1841 is just a covert way of circumventing this part of the bill. In fact I suggest that it is a rather cynical approach. Instead of Green members just saying they oppose Part 2 they have submitted amendments in order to avoid having to admit that. 
I will not make an issue of who is responsible for there being a closing-off date but suffice it to say that setting a date is in the best interests of this country. If we are to go ahead like we want to then this is the sort of legislation we need to put into action. It is no good saying that this was not something the Office of Treaty Settlements asked for—of course it is not going to ask for it. That office is the servant of this Government irrespective of which party is part of the Government and it does what is required of it in terms of the policy that the Government sets for it. 
If we want to criticise the Office of Treaty Settlements then we have to criticise the policy. I say that as one who came from a long term of service as a public servant and I know full well that although public servants may not like certain policies they are required to carry them out. If they do not do so then they have to leave. After working for 39 years in the public service I say there must be something good about it. Sometimes I feel for the officials who come before select committees but that does not deter from the intent and the quality of this part of the bill. On behalf of New Zealand First I say that it is our pleasure to support the intent of Part 2. 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS (Minister of State) 
: 
 Te mea tuatahi maku kei te mihi atu ki a koe te Kaiwhakahaere. A i tenei po e tu atu ana ki te tautoko i te pire whakawhiriwhiri take Maori. Hoi ano tenei e tu atu ano noki ki te tautoko i taku whanaunga a Pita te mokopuna o Kawiti e tu nei ki te whakamarama ki a tatou nga ahuatanga e pa ana ki tenei wahanga o te Tiriti. 
[ 
Firstly greetings to you Madam Chair. I rise tonight to support the Maori Purposes Bill and my relation Pita grandchild of Kawiti who stood to explain to us aspects of it that relate to this part of the Treaty. 
] 
I am taking a short call to stand and support my whanaunga there Pita Paraone in his submissions supporting this bill. You know it is very interesting that when I hear the comments of some of the previous speakers and those from the Kakariki the Greens I am inspired to recognise that we are getting closer to the days of festival the days of merry Christmas happy New Year and Santa Claus. I have listened to a lot of speeches in this House and I know that sometimes people get transformed as they get closer to Christmas because the figments of imagination and fantasy bloom in all of us as we peruse a number of bills that come before this House. But I suggest that if the Green Party supports a 2050 close-off then I do not think that many people will be around this House by that date—I certainly will not be here. I just wonder at their rationale because quite frankly the majority of the Maori people in this country want to get this business over and done with. 
Shane Jones 
: Apopo. 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS 
: Apopo—they want to get on with the action. “Bring it on!” They want to be able to see a cut-off date put their claims in do their research and get on with the job. They do not want all this ehara kau ratou te iwi Maori e hiahia ana kia tarewa tonu tenei kaupapa. 
[ 
they the Maori people do not want this matter left unsettled 
.] 
They do not want to see this hanging over their heads for the rest of their lives especially to 2050. Then in 2050 there will be some crazy somebody from some crazy party who will say that 2050 is not good enough so let us move it to 2100. Well it would just go on and on and on— 
Shane Jones 
: Good idea! 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS 
: It is nice for the whanaunga to say good one—kei te pai. Most of us will probably be in the mortuary by then but anyway no worries. 
I come back to some of the bills that have come before this House just before Christmas. I know that we all have good feeling for each other—some more than others—but when we look at this bill we see there is a lot of rational thought behind it and I support the submission of my whanaunga Pita Paraone. It just makes common sense. Let us get on with it. 
I know that National has said that it supports the date of 2008 as the date of introduction. National said that it was its policy to begin with. We can have another korero about that later on but as I said earlier on Christmas brings some funny things and perhaps people forget their own policy. But this is the date that has been mooted by the Labour Party since I was a young fella. 
I congratulate the Minister of Maori Affairs on bringing this bill and specifically this provision before the Committee. I wish him well. Some of the things that are raised in this Committee in terms of time frames really amaze me. I come back to what I said—perhaps it is because we are getting towards Christmas time. Maybe one day we will see the Minister of Maori Affairs coming down the chimney delivering some presents. I know that he is keen to do that; he is keen to put on the red suit come down the chimney and fill the tokenas with good kohas. So in terms of the debate I have heard a lot of funny things as we get closer to Christmas but I think that the submissions made by the Green Party actually take the cake. 
I support the bill and I believe that the majority of the people in this country and the majority of Maori people want to get on with the business put their submissions and applications in by 2008 do the research and get on and settle the claims. 
No reira kei te mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. Meri Kirihimete ki a koutou katoa. Tena koutou kia ora tatou. 
[ 
So I greet you all. Merry Christmas and good health to one and all. 
] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena tatou katoa. Me penei rawa te korero ki a tatou a Maori nei mama noa iho te korero mo te anga whakamua ko te whakatinanatanga koi na te uauatanga. Ko ta te ao Maori e kimi nei ko tetahi huarahi kia ea ai nga uauatanga e pa ana ki nga kereme ko te whakatinanatanga koi na te mahi uaua. Ko te nuinga o te kainga me ki me korero au mo te Waiariki kei te whakahe ki tenei wahanga. E te Minita koi nei te tikanga o te noho whakahirahira o tenei wahanga o te pire. Ko te nuimga o tera hunga he kaikereme. Koi nei matou e ki nei me ukui katoa i tenei wahanga o te pire. Katoa. 
E penei ana te korero ko te wahanga 16 o te pire kei reira tetahi whakamarama mo tenei mea mo te “historical Treaty claim”. A me ki ko nga nawe ko nga pehitanga i mua tonu o te 21 o Hepetema te tau 1992. Ko ta matou e ki nei o te Pati Maori ae katahi ano tenei korero o te “historical Treaty claim” ka puta mai engari kei te rongo i te korero o Georgina te Heuheu. Na ko tenei wahanga o te pire ka tini haere tera wahanga . Ka mutu ka whakatahangia ko nga mea o nehe ki tetahi wahanga. Ko te mea nui kia whakatau i nga kereme katoa. Koi nei ta matou e hiahia nei. Engari mena ka whai tenei huarahi kua pahu ake etahi kereme ano o tenei ao. 
Ko te mate ke kaore tenei kawanatanga i haere ki te mata o te whenua ki te patai i nga iwi pehea o ratou whakaaro mo tenei pire. Ahakoa kua tata eke ki te rua tekau tau o te kirimana i waenganui a ngai Maori kia haere te kawanatanga ki te iwi Maori ki reira korero ai. Na ehara tenei i nga matapono o te Tiriti o Waitangi ara ko te “partnership” ko te “participation” otira ko te wananga i nga take e pa ana ki a ngai tatou. Me ki ko te wananga i nga take mo te painga o te katoa. 
E te Kaikorero ko taku hoa a takuta Pita Sharples i ngana ki te korero ki te akiaki i te Komiti Whaiti Maori nei ki te poro i tenei wahanga o te pire—otira kia waiho ki te taha pea kia mutu ra ano te korero ki te ao Maori—engari huare ake. Me ki kai te patai te Pati Maori me ukui tenei wahanga o te pire kai roto i nga korero i runga i te tepu. 
Ko tetahi uauatanga o tetahi korero o roto o te pire ko tenei kupu ko te “submit” 
. 
 Ko te “submit” 
e korerohia ake nei ko te pepa kotahi? Ae ranei he pepa kotahi ae ranei e rua nga pepa ae ranei he ripoata? He patai nui tera. Ko taku e ki nei ae kai te ki mai te mema ano hoki te tikanga ma tenei pire e taea ai e te kawanatanga te whakariterite i nga huarahi hei whai a nga tau kei mua i te aroaro. Ka puta mai te korero a te mema o Nahinara a Georgina te Heuheu kai te ki mai a ia ko te nuinga kai te mohiotia e te motu. Ko taku e ki nei nohea tena korero nawai tera i ki? Ko ta matou o te Pati Maori e ki nei kua mutu ke tera. Kua korerohia ketia ko te 1.3 piriona taara taku e korero nei kua oti ke tera. Ko nga kaupapa here o te Office of Treaty Settlements 
  
kua oti ke tera. Ko te wahanga ki tena iwi ki tena iwi ki tena iwi kua oti ke tera. 
No reira ko taku ki tera wahanga o tera korero. No reira ko ta matou e ki nei ae me anga whakamua engari me whakatikatika i enei wahanga. Ko taku e ki nei hei korero whakamutunga me poro i tenei wahanga me timata mai ano i te timatanga. Me hoki ki te iwi ki reira korero ai. Kia ora tatau. 
No reira ko taku ki tera wahanga o tera korero. No reira ko ta matou e ki nei ae me anga whakamua engari me whakatikatika i enei wahanga. Ko taku e ki nei hei korero whakamutunga me poro i tenei wahanga me timata mai ano i te timatanga. Me hoki ki te iwi ki reira korero ai. Kia ora tatau. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Greetings to us all. I need to stress to us Maori members that it is easy to talk about going forward but the difficulty is implementing it. What Maoridom is seeking is a way of overcoming the difficulties relating to the claims. Implementing it is the real difficulty. Most claimants who made submissions opposed this part of the bill. That is why this part of the bill is so important. Most of that number were claimants. The majority from home from the Waiariki electorate that I represent oppose this part. That is why we say that this part of the bill must be done away with—all of it. 
Contained in clause 16 of the bill is a definition of “historical Treaty claim”—that is grievances and breaches prior to 21 September1992. We of the Maori Party say that this reference to a historical claim has only just emerged but we note Georgina te Heuheu’s statement about it. This part of the bill will eventually change. In the end claims from the past will be put to one side in another category. The most important thing is that all claims are settled. This is what we desire. But if we were to follow this pathway a whole lot of other claims relating to this era would emerge forcefully. 
The real problem is that this Government did not go to the people throughout the land to seek their views about this bill. There has been an agreement for nearly 20 years among Maori for the Government to go the Maori people to consult with them. This is not according to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi—partnership participation discussion with us and so on; let us say discussion of matters that will benefit all. 
My colleague Dr Pita Sharples urged and prompted the Maori Affairs Committee to do away with this part of the bill—indeed put it to one side perhaps until consultation with Maoridom has been finally undertaken—but to no avail. The Maori Party is asking to have this part removed from the bill that has been tabled. 
Another difficulty we have relates to the wording in the bill for “submit”. Is the “submit” mentioned here a single paper a two-page one or a report? That is an important question. The National member Georgina te Heuheu has stated that most of it is known widely throughout the country. Where did that talk come from and who said it? The member also tells us that this bill will enable the Government to arrange procedures for others to follow in the future. But we of the Maori Party say that that has been done now. It has already been discussed. The $1.3 million is what I am talking about here. That is finished. The policies of the Office of Treaty Settlements that has been done. Participation by that tribe and the other tribe that is completed finished. 
So that is my view on that part of the debate. Therefore what we are saying is this: yes let us go forward but let us tidy up these parts as well. My closing statement is this: let us chop out this part; let us go back and start again. Let us go back to the people and promote dialogue there. Greetings to us all 
.] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Kia ora Madam Chair. Kia ora tatau katoa e korerotia nei nga korero mo te kaupapa nei. 
[ 
Greetings to us all debating this matter 
.] 
I very rarely agree with my whanaunga from Matauri but I would like to stand here tonight and record for  
Hansard 
 my support for his recommendation that the closing-off date for Treaty settlements be 2100. Me mihi atu ki a koe Dover e whakatakoto i tera korero roto i te Whare nei. 
[ 
I salute you Dover for making that statement in this Chamber. 
] 
But on a more serious note I come back to a general question which I address to all Maori in this Chamber. It is a simple question: do they believe—and I ask them to raise their hands if they do—that their tupuna thought there would be a deadline for Treaty settlements? What I thought would be the case is so; none of us believes that our tupuna thought that. Let the record show that neither the Minister of Maori Affairs nor any other Labour Party Maori MP put up a hand. Neither did the translators the officials nor anybody else in this Chamber. So while we are here talking about a closing-off date for Treaty settlements no Maori in this Chamber believes that any of their tupuna thought there should be one. 
That being the case I ask myself what the rush is. The Treaty was never meant to have a deadline although if it is to have a cut-off date then I do support the Green Party spokesperson’s suggestion that it be 2050 because if the statistics are right by 2050 we will be halfway there and when that bill comes up in 2050 it will be out the back door as quick as look at you. So kia kaha ratou te moe tahi te hanga i te iwi kia pai te ahua o tenei Whare. 
[ 
I encourage them to wed each other and to create a race that will enhance this Parliament. 
] 
The Treaty was not about a deadline. There was no end date. Our tupuna had no expectation that there would be an end to their claims to rangatiratanga an end to their rangatiratanga runga i wa ratou whenua ngahere moana me wena atu o nga taonga o Te Ao Maori. 
[ 
self-determination over their lands forests waterways and those other treasures of Maoridom. 
] 
There was no expectation by Parekura’s ancestors—or Dover’s Dave’s Clem’s Pita’s Metiria’s Georgina’s Te Ururoa’s or mine—that their rangatiratanga would come to a end on any particular date. I know this to be true as do all of the other Maori in this Whare. If Governor Hobson had said: “You can have your rangatiratanga but on a certain date it’s all going to come to an end.” then how many people would have signed the Treaty? It would have been the same number of people as the number who put up their hands in the Chamber tonight—none. 
The Treaty is about our management of our resources both Pakeha and Maori. The Treaty talks about dispute resolution about rights of citizenship and about governance. It does not talk about an end date for any one of those things. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: Nobody knew it was going to be broken. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: The fact that it was broken is even more reason for it never to be ended. We need to fight to have it validated and if that fight should go on forever then it will go on forever. 
If there is to be an end date then let that end date be for compensation claims not settlement claims. It should be for claims of compensation only. I referred back to the historical claims that have been settled to date and found that in every case the Crown never offered more than 3 percent of the value of any one of those claims. And in respect of every one of those claims the Crown never settled for more than 2.8 percent of those claims. Even to assume that we as Maori in this Parliament could accept that historical claims should be settled by 2008 is to assume that our tupuna would want us to give that away that our tupuna would accept that we could give away our children’s and our grandchildren’s rights to the resources—what little they are—we ourselves enjoy today. 
I welcome Georgina te Heuheu back to her post. It is good to see her back there on behalf of the National Party. 
Like Metiria Turei I also say that settlement in haste is settlement without justice and rushing forward into 2008 will not resolve any of these issues. I do not know that Maori people think they have this big problem hanging over their heads and that they want it settled fast. Certainly I think they want compensation they want what is due and they want it now. But that is not to say that they want their historical claims settled forever by 2008. I know absolutely that if the Maori members in this Parliament were to go traipsing around the country on a tour and were to put that case to Maori the reply would be a resounding: “No thanks!”. So let us not con ourselves in this Parliament that there is any expectation on behalf of Maori that 2008 comes even close to being a rational date for the settlement of claims. 
The level of opposition in the submissions on the Maori Purposes Bill on this particular matter is huge—80 percent of submissions from Maori are opposed to the 2008 settlement date. I heard my whanaunga over there from Ngati Hine talking about how the matter needs to be settled in order to move the nation forward but we cannot move the nation forward if people have been stolen from. We cannot move forward with justice without settling justly—and a 3 percent settlement is not a just claim in anyone’s books. There is not a person in this Chamber who would accept a 3 percent settlement on just about anything—except in a tsunami. 
I tell folks that we in this Parliament can do better—not just for Maori but for this nation—by realising that trying to force an early settlement of Treaty claims is simply denying reality which is that Parekura Horomia’s children along with my children and the grandchildren of all of us Maori in this House will continue to actively fight for the settlement of their claims in their time. And the Maori Party stands here to serve notice to the rest of this Parliament that we will support them every step of the way. 
Me mihi atu ki a tatou tena koutou kia ora tatou katoa. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 46; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Motion agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The first amendment in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to Part 2 to omit this part is out of order as it is a direct negation of the question that Part 2 stand part. The proper course of action is to vote against the part. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to clause 16 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Noes 107 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 46; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 16 be agreed to: 
to omit the expression “21 September 1992” and substitute the expression “1 January 1841”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Noes 107 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 46; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 18 be agreed to: 
to omit new section 6AA. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Noes 107 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 46; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 18(1) be agreed to: 
to omit the expression “1 September 2008” and substitute the expression “1 September 2050”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Noes 107 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 46; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 18(2) be agreed to: 
to omit the expression “1 September 2008” and substitute the expression “1 September 2050”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Noes 107 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 46; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 46; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Part 3 Maori Fisheries Act 2004 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 46; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Part 3 agreed to. 
Part 4 Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 In respect of Part 4 I would like to raise a generic issue about the settlement of claims whether relating to aquaculture or otherwise and I would like to raise a point that was brought up with me by one of my whanaunga from Te Tai Tokerau where many wise people come from. He said to me that one of the reasons we should be opposing the Treaty claims settlement process be it in relation to aquaculture or otherwise is that— 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I apologise for interrupting the member but can you clarify for the benefit of the Committee the position concerning a member who is speaking from a chair other than one allocated to the party he belongs to. Is that appropriate even in the Committee stage? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member should be speaking from his own chair please. We will give him plenty of time to get over there. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: I thank Mr Benson-Pope for his assistance. I just wanted to point out an issue that was raised with me in respect of aquaculture claims settlements and claims settlements generally. The point raised with me and I have since had it clarified with some of the officials myself is that one of the concerns Maori should have in respect of these settlements is that once the Treaty settlement process is considerably through—that is 50 percent is good enough—the Crown will then be able to signal to the World Bank and to the International Monetary Fund that this place no longer has encumbrances on the kind of rape and pillage brigade that goes into countries for the singular purpose of amassing wealth and securing the resources of indigenous people. 
I wanted to raise that here and put it on the record as a concern of the Maori Party that be it in respect of the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act of 2004 or be it in respect of the Treaty claims settlement process there is a desperate need for Maori to oppose an end date to the claim processes in order to ensure that those encumbrances remain for the benefit of all New Zealanders. Once those encumbrances are removed the country becomes open to attacks by and the invasion of big money corporates from overseas who will have no respect for the rights of not only Maori in this country but Pakeha as well. Koi na noa taku korero mo tenei po. 
[ 
That is my contribution for tonight. 
] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You ruled against the previous speaker speaking from another desk. But under Speakers’ ruling 45/6 it is quite clear that a speaker can speak from any desk that he or she likes. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for that. I think it is from any desk in the group of seats allocated to the party. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Speakers’ ruling 45/6 states: “(1) There is no limitation on where members may address the Chair from. Members may use their own desk or another member’s; (2) or come to the Table if they want to.” That implies to me that the previous speaker could have spoken from wherever he wished to speak from. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The issue was raised by Mr David Benson-Pope. He was wrong and I ruled wrongly. So I apologise to Mr Hone Harawira but I do think he looks more comfortable with Mr Te Ururoa Flavell. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 4 be agreed to. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 46; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Part 4 agreed to. 
Clause 1 Title 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 46; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 Commencement 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 46; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the Committee divide the bill into Te Ture Whenua Maori Amendment Bill / Maori Land Amendment Bill the Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Bill the Maori Fisheries Amendment Bill and the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill  
divided into Te Ture Whenua Maori Amendment Bill Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Bill Maori Fisheries Amendment Bill Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill  
pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 80 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 46; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Motion agreed to.