Flavell Te Ururoa: Maori Purposes Bill — Second Reading 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Maori Purposes Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:636;Page:6894] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Madam Speaker kia ora tatou katoa iteneipo. The Maori Party is not about to buy into a culture of silence that appears to have strangled some members of the Government. We are about to speak out in this House about things that matter and we think Te Tiriti o Waitangi is a pretty good place to start. So what do we have here? For starters we have a bill that amends the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. The bill before the House proposes the imposition of a closing date of 1 September 2008 for new historical Treaty claims to be submitted to the Waitangi Tribunal. That is it; end of story. No more claims can be submitted after that date. 
The bill also provides a new definition of “historical Treaty claim” to take in claims relating to events occurring before 21 September 1992. For the first time in our history the bill is inserting into legislation a definition of “historical Treaty claim”. Up until this point there has not been a formal distinction between historical and contemporary claims. This bill makes the changes. 
Twenty years ago in 1986 Cabinet agreed in the area of policy development and legislation that Maori should be consulted on all significant matters affecting how the Treaty is applied. One year later in the ground-breaking case  
New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General— 
the lands case—the Court of Appeal characterised the Treaty relationship as a special partnership which was reflected in four fundamental principles: firstly fiduciary duty in that the Crown has a duty actively to protect Maori interests; secondly a full spirit of cooperation so where there are Treaty implications the responsibility for the Crown to make informed decisions will require consultation; thirdly the honour of the Crown where the Treaty is a positive force in the life of the nation and thus the Government; and lastly fair and reasonable redress. 
As a result of that case Parliament took action to improve the statutory protection of Maori interests. And then here we are today. Let us be clear—18 of the 20 submissions received were to do with concerns about the imposition of a closing date. They urged the Government to consult adequately with Maori regarding the reasonableness and appropriateness of the cut-off date of 1 September 2008. The Dunedin Community Law Centre and the NgaiTahu Maori Law Centre argued that good government demands more than doing what is popular. It demands that action be taken to address the valid claims of hapu and iwi who were wronged by the Crown. This cannot be done without a fair and impartial process. The Human Rights Foundation argued that a process of dialogue should be initiated with the aim of securing broad Maori agreement with the provisions in the bill particularly those relating to the deadline for lodging historical Treaty claims. The Treaty Tribes Coalition noted concerns that the bill will undermine the settlements process. 
It seems to me that these groups know the Cabinet guidelines court findings and statutory responsibilities better than the Crown does. As at 30 April 2006 1315 claims had been lodged with the Waitangi Tribunal. By anyone’s estimates that is a significant volume of claims. The downside is that we have no idea really about the number of claims that could possibly come through the door. Worse still more grievance could be created by the whole process anyway where there are things like cross-claims for example. 
What is the evidence from consultation to justify that one side of the Treaty’s signatories—the Crown—can unilaterally impose a cut-off point a deadline a point of no return and say that it is fair. This sort of attitude reminds me of the settlement process we are currently suffering. One of the great ironies of this Government is the way in which Treaty claims are frequently described as contributing to the process of reconciliation. The Office of Treaty Settlement’s guides to Treaty claims and negotiations with the Crown is entitled  
Ka tika a muri ka tika a mu: Healing the past building a future 
. The Waitangi Tribunal website puts the case even more forcefully: “The Waitangi Tribunal inquiry process contributes to the resolution of Treaty claims and in that way to the reconciliation of outstanding issues between Maori and Pakeha.” Yet in this Maori Purposes Bill issues of such national significance for all New Zealanders issues that are central to the reconciliation and healing process as required in the relationship between Maori and Pakeha are imposed contrary to all Treaty principles of partnership participation and informed decision-making through effective consultation. 
On the upside I suppose there are one or two positive aspects to the bill which are there basically to spice up the lousy parts. The Maori Party supports the increase in the number of Maori Land Court judges from eight to 14. In the interests of efficiency we also support the delegation by the Chief Judge to the Deputy Chief Judge in order to deal with an increase in expected future caseloads. But this does not change our fundamental concerns about the Crown’s imposed ultimatum without the prior discussion and agreement with Maori parties to the Treaty. We remain extremely concerned about the failure of any funding to be allocated to enhance the process as put forward by MetiriaTurei. 
 It is a matter of much significance that neither the Waitangi Tribunal nor claimant groups are being given the necessary support to assist in the process of helping claimants to formulate their claims before 1 September 2008. Te Runanga o Te Arawa in its submission reminded Parliament of the recommendation of the UN special rapporteur that the tribunal must be “allocated more resources to enable it to carry out its work more efficiently and complete its inquiries within a foreseeable time frame.” 
The other group of concerns that are located in this bill are to do with the way in which the proposed changes will impact upon the Maori Fisheries Act and the aquacultural policy. The Maori Fisheries Act will be amended to enact revised numbers of quota shares in respect of seven different stocks. The Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act will be amended with the effect being that potentially the amount of aquaculture space allocated to iwi will decrease. The changes are given scarce detail and little explanation. In fact the New Zealand Maori Council is so concerned about the impact of these changes that it submits that the bill “undermines the spirit and intentions of the 1992 fisheries claims settlement and is another attempt at eroding Maori fisheries rights by making technical adjustments here and there.” 
I read a paper by Bell Gully Senior Associate Mr Damian Stone who described the Maori Purposes Bill as “the most significant legislation affecting Maori to be introduced into the House in the current parliamentary term.” Mr Stone went further to suggest that the changes inherent in this bill are arguably the most significant changes to the Treaty of Waitangi Act since the tribunal’s jurisdiction was extended in 1985 to provide it with the capacity to inquire into historical claims dating back to 1840. If Mr Stone is right—and we have every reason to believe so—then how can the Crown adopt all the finesse of a bulldozer in forcing through such momentous changes? The Maori Purposes Bill not only walks right over the interests of Maori but also serves to constrain and limit the rights of participation of future generations in the Treaty claims process. 
In concluding I say that in a process of reconciliation and of healing the past to build a future surely past wrongs must be addressed alongside a commitment to ensure that no fresh grievances are created. The unilateral imposition of a time limit and a consultation process that saw 20 submissions received but only eight heard are not signs of a commitment to a mutually healthy future. 
The Maori Party believes in the ideals espoused by the New Zealand Maori Council—that a framework for the resolution of Treaty claims will reflect integrity honesty durability and good faith between the Crown and Maori. The Maori Party will oppose this bill. It is our view that like all Treaty settlements to date it is another example of the continuing breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi by the Crown.