Sharples Pita: Statutes Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Sharples Pita: Statutes Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:637;Page:7858] 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 It is good for the Maori Party to be able to come to this House and feel that its members have been consulted on this legislation and that their concerns have been taken into account. As a consequence we are happy to support the bill going forward. 
During the consultation process and the korero leading up to the tabling of this Statutes Amendment Bill we identified points of concern and potential controversy associated with 10 of the 62 different Acts originally proposed for inclusion in this bill. Of those initial 10 Acts we note that our concerns around six of the amendments have been considered to be of sufficient bearing to require that the amendments be removed from the bill being discussed today. 
With regard to the Fisheries Acts I note just for the record that some of our more substantial concerns were to do with amendments to the Fisheries Act 1996 the Maori Fisheries Act 2004 and the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. It is important for this House to know that our concerns around the proposed changes to fishing quotas and the effect of registering settlement quota interests against quota shares fall within the wider concerns related to the rights of tangata whenua to be consulted. The explanatory notes of the amendments to the Fisheries Act advised that people with a direct interest in the amendments had been consulted and were in support of them. But our interest was piqued when we never heard back from the Minister or his office after we asked a simple question: “were iwi included in this consultation process?”. We presume that the answer must be no given that the proposed amendments are now removed from the bill. The issue purely and simply is one of due process; yet again this Government failed to abide by the process that it expects all others to follow. 
Another key area of our concern related to the Forests Amendment Act 1996. We sought further information about the implications in the amendment that may arise for Maori ownership rights to forest produce including carbon credits. We were also keen to understand the implications for Maori rights in relation to Crown forests on—or potentially on—Maori land. Again there was no response—interesting! 
I began this call however by introducing a good-news story to the debate and in this light I commend the Rt Hon Winston Peters in particular for his comprehensive response to the concerns we raised about four different Acts. In his capacity as Minister for Racing Mr Peters listened to our concerns regarding the proposed amendment to allow an alternative person to serve on the nomination advisory panel as part of the process for appointing independent members to the New Zealand Racing Board. The Maori Party was concerned that that amendment could create an awkward precedent that could result in difficulties in maintaining communication particularly if the goal was to ensure continuity of representation. We were also concerned about the increased pressure this could place on tangata whenua nominees to guarantee consistent representation. In discussion with the Minister we were able to resolve our concerns so the amendment to the Racing Act 2003 will proceed. 
I turn to the Cook Islands Act 1915 the Niue Act 1966 and the Tokelau Act 1948. The other group of Acts that we sought clarification on were the amendments as they related to the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau Acts and associated regulations. As someone who has lived in the Tokelau Islands for 9 months who spent many many years in and out of the Cook Islands and who has developed a strong relationship with the Niue people of Auckland I say that I have more than a passing interest in ensuring that the needs of Pasifika people are respected and taken into account. The material received on these statutes stated that the amendments are a complex project. We were of a united view that no matter how complex the project it was essential to ensure that the respective Governments of the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau had been advised and consulted on the amendments. Again it is a matter of due process. 
In the response received from the Minister we were assured that the repeals would not compromise the Cook Islands Niue or Tokelau that their local laws would not change except at the request of Tokelau nor would there be any interference with the constitutional status of those nations and their unique relationships with Aotearoa. He also informed us that the respective Governments of these countries would be duly advised of the changes being made to our law books before the bill was tabled. There is still more. The Minister of Foreign Affairs the Rt Hon Winston Peters went the extra mile to identify the quality expertise that had been made available to him on this matter. He especially credited Professor Tony Angelo for his work with aspects of the law in Tokelau and Niue Alison Quentin-Baxter for her work the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and legal advisers in the Parliamentary Counsel Office. 
 Just a single letter or a confidential briefing was all that was required to be able to discuss and consider the implications and ramifications of the proposed legislative amendments. I cannot help but contrast that situation with the various statements over the last month that have risen out of the mouths of other Ministers who have suggested that actions taken by tangata whenua have amounted to anarchy are silly are ridiculous or are verging on hysteria. We have been told that in presenting the views of Maori our advocacy is inappropriate very irresponsible and surprising. Other Ministers have admitted that they have not been briefed on the key issues for Maori. The Prime Minister has told Maori that repossessing their lands in their endeavours to be heard is not the way to get things done. Just yesterday another Minister responded to my question in the House about consultation processes by implying that this was achieved by consulting another arm of Government namely Te Puni Kokiri. 
This House needs to recognise that consultation with Maori does not mean talking to itself. Consultation with Maori does not mean that their ideas are dismissed or ridiculed and their people attacked. Consultation with Maori does not mean that they are ignored and their issues denied. Consultation requires the Crown to listen learn and be involved in dialogue and debate. The Maori Party will continue to put forward the concerns and priorities of Maori no matter how uncomfortable or how surprised Ministers may be to hear them. We are here to do our very best to ensure that a strong and independent Maori voice with influence is present in this debating Chamber. 
We are heartened by the response of Mr Peters who has given us confidence that at least one Minister will enable an opportunity for people to participate for voices to be heard and for due access to justice to be part of the political process. We are looking forward to that Minister’s openness to tangata whenua voices extending to the United Nations Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples when it comes back to the General Assembly for voting on later this year.