Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:10288] 
Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I move  
That the Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that this bill be considered by the Justice and Electoral Committee. To begin let me be clear and I merely raise this as a matter of clarification as it has been queried by some outside of this House who have tried to frame New Zealand First’s motives in terms of the personalities involved. They are wrong. 
This bill was drawn from the ballot in October last year and at the time I said that it presents an opportunity to remove what we in New Zealand First see as an inherent conflict of interest in the operation of the courts and special jurisdictions sphere of the Ministry of Justice. This bill is not intended to place into question the integrity of the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court and/or the chairman of the Waitangi Tribunal. New Zealand First does not care who fills the roles; we simply believe that they should not be filled by one and the same person as is the current position. This bill has come about from the concern held by New Zealand First of the perception of a possible conflict of interest. New Zealand First has thought about it with reason and with logic and has given the bill due consideration before bringing it to this House. 
The bill removes the inherent conflict of interest that presently exists that allows serving judges of the High Court or Maori Land Court including the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court to serve as members of the Waitangi Tribunal and where the judge is either a serving or retired judge of the High Court or the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court to preside as chairperson of the tribunal. However some may think that it may be fine for a judge of the Maori Land Court to continue to sit on the Waitangi Tribunal but not as its chairperson. We in New Zealand First would like to think that this possibility will be considered during the select committee process. 
Serving judges of the High Court from time to time—and if they have not as yet then they certainly have the capacity to do so—adjudicate on Treaty of Waitangi claims and in the Maori Land Court. As such they have to adjudicate on decisions made by the Waitangi Tribunal particularly in relation to land claims. It would seem highly dubious to us in New Zealand First to allow serving judges of either court to preside over matters on the Waitangi Tribunal when they may have presided over those matters in the High Court or indeed the Maori Land Court. It seems also highly dubious to allow serving judges of either court to preside over matters on the tribunal when they may have presided over these matters in the High Court or the Maori Land Court. This bill removes the possibility of this occurring. 
The bill removes the ability of serving judges of the High Court or the Maori Land Court to serve as members of the Waitangi Tribunal in any capacity. Instead it provides for retired judges of the High Court or the Maori Land Court including the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court to be members of the Waitangi Tribunal and where that retired judge is either a retired judge of the High Court or a retired Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court to preside as chairperson of the tribunal. That is covered in clause 4. 
This bill raises an important practical issue that ought to be addressed beyond the first reading debate. We in New Zealand First also believe that there are sufficient Maori with the talents and qualifications to fill these roles without keeping the roles to a very small pool of people. We simply cannot accept that there are not other Maori with sufficient qualifications and experience who can be appointed to one or other of the two roles that we are talking about in this bill. 
As an aside I note that earlier during this parliamentary term under the auspices of the Maori Purposes Bill sponsored by the Minister of Maori Affairs this House passed a measure allowing for an increase in the number of Maori Land Court judges to be appointed. Why was this? It was because it recognised the increase in the workload that judges of this court would have to deal with as a consequence of a particular Treaty settlement. 
From that same bill this House supported a clause that allowed for the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court to delegate his duties to his deputy. In my mind I have regarded this as not only recognising the importance of ensuring the responsibilities of the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court are able to be maintained but as also recognising the fact that the workload of being Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court and being chair of the Waitangi Tribunal simultaneously is such that such a delegation was a necessity to ensure the smooth running of these two organisations. I am not suggesting that this in itself is sufficient reason for this House to adopt this bill but it certainly gives rise for further consideration of the intent of this bill. 
On behalf of New Zealand First I ask that this House seriously consider sending this bill to a select committee to allow the people of New Zealand—not least those who are involved in the judiciary—to express their views and to hear what they have to say on this matter. I support the referral of this bill to the select committee. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 National will support the first reading of the Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill and its reference to the Justice and Electoral Committee. 
The explanatory note of the bill states that clause 4 addresses what is alleged to be the inherent conflict of interest that permits “serving Judges of the High Court or Maori Land Court (including the Chief Judge”—Joe Williams—“of the Maori Land Court) to serve as members of the Waitangi Tribunal.” I wonder whether this is in fact an inherent conflict of interest. That is what the select committee will need to examine. 
Conflicts of interest can arise in a number of ways and people in private and public life who are in certain positions need to take care lest they find themselves in one. For example lawyers can find themselves in a conflict of interest when they act against a former client when they act for more than one party in a transaction or when they place their own business interests above their professional responsibilities. Indeed the law reports are replete with cases where courts have found against lawyers in those sorts of situations. 
The most recent report of the Auditor-General on the subject provides very good guidance for public officials and their need always to avoid a conflict of interest. But I am not sure that there is necessarily a conflict of interest as articulated by Mr Paraone in his speech. After all it is not uncommon for a judge of one court to sit in another court. For example judges of the High Court sometimes sit in the Court of Appeal on the criminal appeal or civil appeal divisions and District Court judges sometimes serve on other courts like the Environment Court. Sometimes they may even obtain a warrant to sit as a temporary judge of the High Court. 
So I do not know that there is an inherent conflict of interest in a judge of either the Maori Land Court or the High Court sitting on the tribunal. But because of the serious issues the bill raises I think it can do no harm to have a good look at the issue given the hugely important work of the tribunal whose workload I am sure will increase when National gains office and treats the Treaty negotiations process as something into which energy and practical idealism should be injected after 8 years of negligence from this Labour Government. 
When the New Zealand First member replies I will be very grateful if he could address a rather sweeping proposition that judges of the High Court or Maori Land Court preside over matters on the tribunal when they may have presided over matters in the High Court or Maori Land Court because I would venture to suggest that such a situation would never occur for a number of reasons. 
First the jurisdiction of the courts in question and the tribunal are completely different. The tribunal’s jurisdiction is conferred by the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. As we know the tribunal has all the powers of a commission of inquiry and is set up to investigate breaches of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Given that that issue is before the Justice and Electoral Committee tomorrow I would note that if the member’s Principles of the Treaty Deletion Bill is passed I cannot see what work the tribunal would have to do because it is set up to examine breaches of the principles of the Treaty. 
The jurisdiction of the Maori Land Court is derived mainly from section 18 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. The High Court was reconstituted by section 3 of the Judicature Act 1908 as a court of record for the administration of justice throughout New Zealand and by virtue of section 16 continues to have all the jurisdiction that it had on the coming into operation of the Judicature Act 1908. It also has all judicial jurisdiction that may be necessary to administer the laws of New Zealand. In practical terms its workload is completely different from the work of the tribunal. 
The only time the work of the tribunal may be raised in the High Court would be if someone sought judicial review of a decision of the tribunal by applying under the Judicature Amendment Act of 1972 and that has happened on a number of occasions over the years. In jurisdictional terms I cannot see how the different jurisdictions of the tribunal and the courts can intersect. If however there was an application for judicial review of the tribunal then it would be unthinkable for a judge presiding over the Waitangi Tribunal that made the decision under review also to preside in the High Court. He or she would automatically recuse himself or herself. The example provided for in the explanatory note of the bill in my opinion does not have any merit. 
From time to time some people have raised the concern expressed by Pita Paraone in his bill but for reasons other than those advanced tonight. It has been said for example that judges deal with legal questions whereas tribunal members by virtue of the jurisdiction of the tribunal are actually advising Governments and are dealing with contemporary and also historical issues and some say that this is not necessarily an ideal position for a judge. 
For myself I have a few difficulties with this argument. As I said earlier a tribunal has all the powers of a commission of inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1908. It is a semi-judicial body although its procedures are not the same as those of a High Court. It is more inquisitorial than adjudicative and the rules of evidence and procedure are somewhat more relaxed than those that apply in the High Court. In other words it is not a court of record which issues judgments. Its findings are recommendatory only save in a few respects. But examination of this issue could be a useful one for the select committee to undertake. 
The most meritorious argument in favour of preventing judges from sitting on the tribunal is that tribunal members could then be full-time with tribunals almost sitting full-time. I know from my own experience at the Bar that nothing is more taxing than a hearing week in the tribunal. I well recall a hearing of the Wai 785 tribunal at Omaka Marae near Blenheim in late 2003. The tribunal had money to enable a week of hearings to take place and Judge Isaac’s diary had a free week. Accordingly the tribunal sat for 5 days but because of the time pressures the tribunal started at around 8.30 a.m. and went through until 6 p.m. That meant that the poor lawyers had to work late into the night having discussions with their clients and then either briefing evidence or preparing for the next day’s cross-examination. 
If tribunals could be resourced so that they could sit more regular hours without that kind of pressure I think the interests of justice would be served and the work of the tribunals would be that much more effective. This is a very important issue that needs to be discussed for that reason more than the reasons that Mr Paraone has mentioned but none the less I think it is an important issue justifying the bill’s reference to the Justice and Electoral Committee. I feel confident that the select committee should be able to consider these issues receive submissions and determine whether the concerns raised by the bill are realistic or not worthy of further consideration. 
For these reasons because of the importance of the issues and because of the hugely important role that the Waitangi Tribunal plays in the justice system of our nation National will support the first reading of the bill. I hear what the member says about its reference to the Justice and Electoral Committee. Perhaps—and it is for the member to decide because it is none of my business—it could go to the Maori Affairs Committee. As my friend knows that committee is not exactly overwhelmed with work at the moment so perhaps it could be in a position to give the matter more careful and detailed consideration than the very busy Justice and Electoral Committee. Given that I serve on both committees I am indifferent but as I say it is none of my business. Ultimately it is a question for the member whose bill this is. 
In conclusion National supports the first reading of the bill and its reference to the select committee so that these important issues can be properly canvassed. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
Otira kei te Kaiwhakawa e noho nei i te turu o te Whare nei tena koe otira tena tatou. Tu noa iho tenei ki te tautoko i te panuitanga tuatahi o tenei pire. Otira i mua atu i tena he whakaaro ke ta matou kei tenei taha o te Whare. No reira ko koe ra e Pita nau tonu i arahi mai tenei pire i runga i tou ake whakaaro kia whakatikatikangia nga ahuatanga e pa ana ki te taraipiunara kia ahei hoki te hunga kei waho ki te korerohia o ratou whakaaro e pa ana ki tenei pire no reira tena koe.  
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Greetings to you indeed Madam Assistant Speaker presiding in the Chair of this House and greetings to us as well. I rise in support of this bill’s first reading. Further to that we on this side of the House have our own views about it. And to you Pita the leading figure of this bill based on your thoughts to amend aspects relating to the tribunal and to give the public a chance to express their views on this bill greetings to you. 
] 
I thank the interpreter for that interpretation of my korero. It was very accurate. 
This is a very small bill when compared with many of the bills that come before the House. As I said earlier on I stand to support the first reading of this bill. But having said that and having listened to the speeches made by the member responsible for the bill and by the National member Chris Finlayson it is obvious that although this is only a small bill—a very succinct bill—it has far-reaching implications for many people. In fact when I read through it—and I comment to the member himself—I would have been tempted to rename it the “Treaty of Waitangi (Sudden Death for Some) Bill” because it basically goes to the heart of what they see as the problem. 
Every time we talk about the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 and we talk about the Waitangi Tribunal a bit of history is conjured up in this House. It is important that we acknowledge the history of the tribunal and all those who have sat on the tribunal since its instigation. In particular I refer to those members of the then Labour Government who had the boldness and the courage to introduce to this Parliament a bill of this magnitude knowing full well that there would be considerable resistance out there in the wider community. I also acknowledge their foresight in recommending that the tribunal be established to hear claims as from 1975. It was not the perfect situation I am aware for those members at that time but it was a very very good start. 
As I stand here I am reminded of the great work of the then Minister of Maori Affairs the Hon Mat Rata who basically drove the legislation through. I will take a moment to acknowledge the chairman of the special select committee that was brought together at that time and who happens to be my uncle Brown Rewiti the Labour member for Tai Rawhiti. So it has quite a history. 
In 1985 the jurisdiction of the tribunal was extended to hear claims dating back to 1840. I also take the opportunity to acknowledge the work of the then Minister of Maori Affairs the Hon Koro Wetere; the many Maori members of Parliament at that time; and those who sat on the tribunal from that time up until today. None of us who have observed and who have been direct participants in the journey of our nation since 1985 could dispute the huge impact that the tribunal and its inquiries have had on our development—for instance who we are where we come from and how we do things. I think in recent weeks we have been reminded of how we should do things. 
When the tribunal was established in 1975 the Treaty of Waitangi Act provided that it consist of a chairperson who could only be the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court plus two other persons. Subsequent amendments increased the membership and the Act now provides for up to 16 members. The Act also provided that the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court also be the chairperson of the tribunal. This requirement remained in position until 1998 when the longstanding chairperson of the Maori Land Court Chief Judge Eddie Durie was elevated to the High Court. Concurrent to this the Act was amended so that the chairperson of the tribunal could be either a judge or a retired judge of the High Court or the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court. This enabled Justice Durie to continue as chairperson of the tribunal while also serving as a judge of the High Court. In recent years he has been succeeded as chairperson by the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court Joe Williams. 
The Treaty of Waitangi Act enables the chairperson of the tribunal from time to time to appoint a judge including the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court as the deputy chairperson of the tribunal. The Act also authorises the chairperson to appoint judges of the Maori Land Court as presiding officers of the tribunal. I think this is the area of conflict that my colleague Pita Paraone is referring to. The legislation therefore contemplates that serving judges will play a significant role in tribunal matters. The bill before us proposes the removal of the inherent conflict of interest of having a serving judge of the High Court or the Maori Land Court including the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court sit on the Waitangi Tribunal. The bill proposes that serving judges not be eligible to sit on the tribunal but that retired judges can be appointed. The argument appears to be that retired judges will not have the described inherent conflict. Thank you Madam Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I should have reminded members that after the first two speeches the speeches are of 5-minutes duration. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
Tekau meneti Whaea; e rima i te reo Maori e rima ano i te reo Pakeha. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Ten minutes Madam Assistant Speaker; 5 minutes in Maori and 5 minutes in English. 
] 
Kia ora. 
Pita Paraone 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Can I just confirm that the 5 minutes in English will be an interpretation of the 5 minutes in Maori? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Yes the member is quite correct. It has to be that. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: E te Kaihautu whakama ana au kia tu ki te korero ki tenei pire. Hara i te mea anake ko te Maori te kaitautoko engari ke ko taku whanaunga o Te Tai Tokerau. E te kaihautu kua wakatakoto a Pita Paraone i tetahi pire kia kore rawa atu e taea e te Maori te whakatau i nga take whenua Maori a kore taea e te Maori kia noho ki te Taraipiunara o Waitangi. Ki toku whakaaro ko tenei he tono na te kaituanui na te kaki whero na te kaikiri hoki. E mara kore rawa au e whakaaro mena he koi te hinengaro he piripono ki nga tikanga Maori ma tena momo Maori e tuku i tenei tono kuare ki mua i a tatou. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
I am embarrassed to be even speaking to this bill not just because it is a Maori who is sponsoring the bill but rather because he happens to be a relation of mine from the north. Pita Paraone has tabled a bill that would make it nigh-on impossible for Maori to judge Maori land issues or indeed to sit on the Waitangi Tribunal itself—a proposal I would have credited to a bigot to a redneck to a racist even. Man such an idea I would never have thought could be proposed by a Maori with any modicum of intelligence or sense of values. 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member cannot use that term and he certainly cannot accuse another member of that. He must withdraw and apologise. 
Metiria Turei 
: Point of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: No I have ruled on the matter of the member using the term “racist”. It is not a parliamentary term. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: Whaea— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: No the member must address— 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: Aroha mai. Kua tika. Aroha mai. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
My apologies Madam Assistant Speaker; you are right. 
] 
Metiria Turei 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I just want to get it absolutely clear because this has been raised in the House a number of times. The ruling as I understand it and as it has been applied to me is that one may use that term when describing a statement or a position but one may not use that term when describing a person. Is that correct? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: That is correct. But he certainly cannot impute racism to another member and I took that to be that situation. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: Whaea ano ra. Me whakamarama ahau i wenei kupu. Anei nga korero: “Ko tenei he tono na te kaituanui na te kaki whero na te kaikiri hoki.” Engari ehara taku whakamarama ko Pita Paraone tera. Ae.  
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Madam Assistant Speaker I want to explain these words. Here they are again: “This is a proposal I would have credited to a bigot to a redneck to a racist even.” but my explanation does not make any reference to Pita Paraone. That is right. 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I thank the member for the explanation. I accept that but certainly I was concerned about it. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: Atu i te whakaaro o te ao Maori ara kia panga atu i tenei tono tinihanga. E hiahia ana au kia korero ki wetahi atu kaupapa a-ture nei kua kitea i roto i tenei pire ara ko te kaupapa kia noho wehe te mana o tena o tena ara ko te rere ketanga o nga mahi o te Paremata ki wera o te Runanga o te Kawanatanga ki wera ano hoki o te kooti a kia kore tetahi e raweke ki tetahi atu. He tino kaupapa tera te tu motuhake o nga kooti. E mohio ana tatou ki te tu o te Tiriti o Waitangi hei kaupapa matua mo Aotearoa a koia ano hoki te kaupapa tokeke e whaia nei e te kooti. 
A he take ano ta tenei kaupapa ara ko te mahi kai huanga. He aha pu tenei ngangara kei roto i te Kooti Whenua Maori me te Taraipiunara o Waitangi e whakaohorere ana i a Nu Tireni Tuatahi me taku whanaunga ano a Pita Paraone. E mara hara i te mea ko tana e ki nei he tino raru mena ka riro e te Maori i te Tiati Matua mo te Kooti Whenua Maori? A ka raruraru ano mena ka noho te Maori ki te Taraipiunara o Waitangi? Koi nei taku patai i te mea kahore ano hoki au i kite i te kiko o nga whakapae mo te mahi kai huanga. A kare hoki te pire nei e whakatakoto i nga whakaaturanga kai huanga me te mana aha ranei mo teneki mahi. 
Ko taku patai i te mea mena ko te mahi kai huanga te mate kei te ropu hanga ture te he na tona whakahihi kia utaina tona mana ki runga i te ropu tiati ma nga ture kuare pera i te pire nei. Kua kite tatou i nga tau kua pahure ake nei i wetahi mahi taurekareka tukino ano hoki i te ropu tiati i timata i te putanga mai o te pire whanako i te takutai moana i mua i te aroaro o te kooti me te Whare nei. 
Kua rongo tatou i te whakapae o te Pirimia Tuarua i te Tiati Matua mo tana kokiri i nga ritenga whakaara ture me tana korero he “tuari toa” noa iho te Tiati Tumuaki. Kua whakapae a Stephen Franks te mema tawhito mo ACT ki runga i te Tiati Matua i te mea i nga tau 20 i mua i te wa i whakawa ia i te tono o Ngati Apa i awhina a ia i te tono o Ngati Te Ata mo te kereme mo te Moana o Manukau. Kua kite tatou i te Pirimia e takahi ana i te mana o ta Tiati Caren Wikiriwhi me tana whakakahore i te mahi a te kawanatanga kia mutu ai nga kereme Takutai Moana o nga iwi o Te Tai Rawhiti i te mea no Ngati Porou a Tiati Wikiriwhi a ko te tono kei mua i a ia no Ngati Porou ano. Kahore ra te Pirimia e amuamu mo nga tiati pakeha e whakawa ana i nga kehi a nga Pakeha. A kua kite ano tatou i te Pirimia Tuarua e whakahe ana i nga mahi a te Tumuaki o te Kooti Whenua Maori a Joe Williams e panuitia ana i te tono a Whakatohea i wa ratou tikanga tuku iho; he whakahe kua whakahokia ki runga i a ia ano. Na te hohonu o te riri nei kua kitea i nga tautohe o Te Runanga Whakahaere me te ropu tiati te korero a te Tiati Matua ara: “E ka raru te mana o te ropu tiati.” 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
If I just step away from the Maori point of view which is clearly to reject such a nonsense as this I would like to point out a couple of key constitutional issues that arise from this bill like the separation of powers: the principle that Parliament Cabinet and the courts are responsible for different functions and should not interfere with one another’s business. The independence of the judiciary is an important issue; for just as the public must be aware of the significance of the Treaty of Waitangi as our constitutional foundation so too must they be assured of the impartiality of our courts. 
Another matter of course is this conflict of interest and what exactly it is in the Maori Land Court and the Waitangi Tribunal that New Zealand First and in particular my relation Pita Paraone is so worked up about. Man surely he is not suggesting that there is any conflict in a Maori being the Chief Maori Land Court Judge is he; or that there is a problem with Maori sitting on the Waitangi Tribunal? I ask because apart from these areas there is nothing else in the bill to justify the sweeping allegations of conflict of interest. Mind you neither does the bill lay out any evidence of conflict of interest or even the effects of possible conflict of interest.  
I also ask because if there is any conflict of interest then it is with the legislature trying to impose its will on the judiciary through petty and domineering little bits of legislation like this one. Over the past few years actually since the bill to steal the foreshore and seabed was in front of the courts and before this House we have seen an unprecedented attack on the judiciary. 
We have had the Deputy Prime Minister accusing the Chief Justice of judicial activism even going so far as to call her a “shop steward”. We have had former ACT MP Stephen Franks accusing our country’s top judge of bias because 20 years before presiding over the Ngati Apa case she helped in Ngati Te Ata’s Manukau Harbour claim to the Tribunal. We have had the Prime Minister questioning Judge Caren Wickliffe’s right to find against the Crown’s attempts to stop East Coast foreshore and seabed claimants from going to court—asking whether Judge Wickliffe should have presided over the hearings because she is Ngati Porou and the case involved Ngati Porou. It is not as if the Prime Minister complains about Pakeha judges presiding over cases involving Pakeha defendants. And we have had the Deputy Prime Minister criticising Chief Maori Land Court Judge Joe Williams for publicising Whakatohea’s customary rights application—a criticism he was quickly forced to withdraw. In fact the seething discontent evident in “ 
Executive v Judiciary 
” led the Chief Justice to actually say:“Judicial independence is at risk.” 
] 
E mohio ana tatou na nga whakaritenga o te Kooti Pira ka tino whakama te kawanatanga a mai i taua wa kua kite tatou i nga mahi morikarika kua utaina e ratou ki runga i te ropu tiati. E te Whare —e tika ana ma tatou e ki ki te kawana—waihotia kia u ki wau nei mahi ara kia whakahiroki i a Aotearoa nei. 
We know that the Appeal Court’s ruling on the foreshore and seabed legislation was a major embarrassment to this Government and we have witnessed this Government’s vicious attacks on the judiciary ever since so we need to say to Government that it should leave the courts alone and stick to its own job of mismanaging the country. 
Tena koutou. The Maori Party will not be supporting this bill today tomorrow or any time soon. Kia ora tatou katoa. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The Greens will not be supporting this bill either for the reasons that have been outlined much more articulately than I can articulate them by my colleague Hone Harawira who spoke just before me. We do not consider there is any problem that needs to be addressed. We cannot see the mischief that this bill is supposed to address and we think that in large part this bill is about applying a double standard. It applies a separate standard to Maori judges to Maori courts and therefore to Maori people and their concerns from the standard it applies to the rest of the population. That is not acceptable. This Parliament should not support any legislation that does that to the detriment of Maori people. 
As far as we can tell—and we may be wrong about this—the only situation where there has been this combination is in relation to the current chair of the Waitangi Tribunal. So again where exactly is the mischief? This is not systemic to the process; it is simply one example. What this is really about—and I agree with the previous speaker on this—is an attack particularly from New Zealand First on the institutions that protect the ability of Maori to resolve their issues through the appropriate forums. 
New Zealand First is well known for its attacks against what it calls the Treaty gravy train. In the time I have been in this House which is nearly 5 years at least two other members’ bills from New Zealand First about the removal of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi have been brought before the House. There have been perpetual attacks particularly by Winston Peters the leader on Maori lawyers on Maori claimants on Maori judges and on Maori who are trying to find ways to broker a better process for the settlement and who are dealing with the restoration of historical wrongs. It is a form of denial about what is really happening for Maori. It is a form of denial against the ability of Maori to reclaim our opportunities to be independent to be economically independent and to have control over our own lives and our own people. 
I guess for some—obviously for New Zealand First—it is a threat that Maori may have more control over the issues that concern them; that they may have more control over their own economic development and resources. Frankly it is very difficult to see what else the point is. Why would this party attack these Maori institutions so strenuously unless it felt that there was some inherent threat to them? That is unfortunate because it is not a real threat. I know that a number of New Zealand First members are deeply involved in Maori institutions that are progressing economically and doing very well and that they are very committed to that. So why then continually attack the institutions that help to support that independence and that movement towards independence? 
It is certainly true that since the foreshore and seabed legislation—and actually before that too—there have been significant attacks made on the Maori judiciary. It was most obvious and most vehement and vicious during the foreshore and seabed debates. I was here during that time as many members will know and I witnessed some of the comments made against the judiciary which had been trying to find a reasonable process in law to deal with a very complex issue. The judiciary had found a very good process. It had used the current legal system and its rules to find in favour of Maori being able to continue to use that process and it was attacked for doing so. 
Since then we have had continual attacks on in particular the judges of the Waitangi Tribunal. I think though that those attacks have been going on for quite a long time. Even just the fact that the tribunal was stripped of its power—for example the power to make mandatory recommendations because it did actually exercise that power once so the tribunal had that power taken from it immediately it had exercised it—was a clear example of that attack in previous years. We are seeing that exact same thing happen with the Government’s refusal to acknowledge the validity of the tribunal’s most recent claims because they attack the Government’s settlement process at heart and describe it as being unfair. 
I think it is much better for this House to dispose of this legislation. It should not go any further. It should be thrown out of the House right now today. Thank you. 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS (Minister of State) 
: 
A e tu ana au ki te whakautu i etahi o nga panui a taku whanaunga a Hone Harawira. E penei ana waku whakaaro. Mai ra ano harakau te iwi tauiwi i haramai ki te korero mo a ratou awangawanga mo tenei take engari te nuinga o nga reo e haere mai ana ki te korero ko te iwi Maori. 
[ 
I rise to respond to some of the statements made by my relation Hone Harawira. My thoughts are as follows. Since the bill’s gestation non-Maori have never come to express their concerns about it. The majority have been Maori. 
] 
Let me say— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member’s interpretation—are you interpreting this? 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS 
: I am translating this. Let me say that the response to this matter has not been because of tauiwi or Pakeha concern about perceived conflicts of interest but because of concern from the enormous number of Maori people who see that sitting on the Maori Land Court and on the tribunal at the same time is clearly a conflict of interest in terms of jurisdiction. 
Hone Harawira 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That is clearly not what the member said in Maori. In his very first sentence he said: “I stand to respond to some of the issues raised by Hone Harawira.” He has not even mentioned that. He is now talking about a whole raft of other things that are not a direct translation of what he said in Maori. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I seek an assurance from the member. I thought that he had done his interpretation then moved on with his speech. Can I have an assurance from the member about that? 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS 
: That is correct Madam Assistant Speaker. 
I want to make it clear that I support Pita Paraone’s bill before the House because very clearly many Maori organisations and iwi have expressed their concern. I am disappointed in the Maori Party’s position on this matter. If it were a Pakeha judge with jurisdiction in the District Court who was sitting on a similar tribunal in another court the Maori Party would be jumping up and down doing the haka and talking about conflicts of interest. It has nothing to do with the colour of the skin of the judge or the tribunal member. It has nothing to do with whether the judge is Maori or Pakeha; it has something to do with perceived conflicts of interest. That is really at the heart of the issue because it has been raised over many many years not by Pakeha but by Maori. Maori see this very clearly as a conflict of interest situation. 
This bill removes that perceived conflict of interest and I say that it is incumbent on this Parliament and this Government to do that so that the people who are involved in terms of litigation and proceedings have confidence that there is impartiality and that there are no conflicts of interest and dual jurisdiction. I am disappointed but not surprised that the spokesperson on justice from the Green Party does not support this bill. 
 Let me say that many Maori have experiences of this—some of them fortunate some of them unfortunate; some of them positive some of them negative—with the proceedings of the Maori Land Court and even with the existence of the Maori Land Court in terms of its jurisdiction and paternal attitude towards the administration of Maori land. Let me say that quite clearly. One of the reasons is that I think Maoridom has the responsibility and the maturity to be able to govern and administer their own land in just the same way as Pakeha do. So why do Maori need to get a permit from the Maori Land Court to build a whare paku a toilet on their land or to make other developments on their land whereas other owners of general land are not required to do so? 
Then of course there is the matter of the jurisdiction of the tribunal. 
Hone Harawira 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think the speaker is getting a little outside the brief of this particular bill when he talks about permits to build toilets on the land. This is not about the workings of the Maori Land Court; this is about the conflict of interest of persons sitting on the Maori Land Court. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: No no—I took it that the member was speaking quite relevantly to the bill. 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS 
: I do not want to take up any more time in the House but I want to say that the majority of Maori people see the dual jurisdiction currently held by a Maori Land Court judge who then sits on the tribunal to adjudicate a matter that may be on the same issues clearly as a conflict of interest. I want to make it quite clear that this is not an issue that should be sheeted home in terms of how Pakeha see it. I say to this House that Maori people are concerned also about the perceived conflict of interests for judges of the Maori Land Court who may be appointed to the tribunal to adjudicate on an issue that may have begun at the Maori Land Court stage. Kia ora tatou. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I want to take just a very brief call to explain that United Future will support this first reading of the Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill. We believe that there are some issues that need to be discussed and that the select committee provides a good forum for that discussion. The issues that this bill seeks to address are ones we have heard talked about in the wider community and in other forums as well. 
I signal that we have some concerns about this proposal. We believe that the Waitangi Tribunal needs the service of the people with the most expertise in order to execute its mandate. Our worry is that this bill would remove from service some of the most competent people available. So we are happy to have the discussion and we support the first reading but we signal at this stage that we are looking for feedback from submitters and from the select committee deliberations on that type of issue. Unless we have those concerns satisfied we will not be able to support this bill any further. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 Firstly I want to make it clear to my colleague from Tai Tokerau and my colleague from the Greens that there is absolutely no suggestion because of the Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill that there is any concern within New Zealand First about a Maori being chair of the Waitangi Tribunal or Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court. We have always believed in the best person for the job. The question here is whether those two positions should be held by the same person. 
Secondly I make the comment that New Zealand First has never made any public comment about Chief Judge Joe Williams or about any Maori Land Court judge and I want that put on record. However the genesis of this bill lies in the New Zealand First manifesto—that group of pledges we went to the public of New Zealand with saying we would use whatever means we could to advance those policy platforms. 
Our Treaty of Waitangi policy is a comprehensive thoughtful and cohesive set of steps that need to be carried through and the first of these is to remove all references to the principles of the Treaty and associated terms from all legislation and regulations where they exist. I have to say that the bill to that effect in the name of Doug Woolerton has already passed its first reading and submissions on it are about to be heard by the Law and Order Committee. 
New Zealand First’s second policy platform is to convert the Waitangi Tribunal to a Waitangi Commission. That would create an agency that could advance claims in a more timely way as well as provide the Minister of Finance and the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations with a greater oversight of the functioning of the agency designed to resolve historical grievances. That is how it should be. The Treaty was between the Crown and Maori. The grievances are with the Crown and Ministers—not a pile of bureaucrats—represent the Crown. The Act would have to be amended to provide the new commission with specificity and focus. 
The third part of the trifecta is a pledge to remove the inherent conflict of interest that exists within the Act with the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court also assuming the role of the chairman of the tribunal. Although there are obvious synergies in combining the two roles they are clearly outweighed by the inherent or potential or maybe just perceived conflict of interest that occurs between the roles of the Maori Land Court and the tribunal—which would be the commission if we had our way. 
I reiterate the comments of my colleague Pita Paraone that this is not a criticism of the person currently in those positions. An independent chairperson will overcome any perception of conflict of interest. He or she will overcome any potential conflict of interest being acted out. It is to be noted that this conflict of interest which is the subject of this bill was clearly illustrated in the recent seabed and foreshore issue when the Waitangi Tribunal made recommendations—including recommendations on the role of the Maori Land Court in hearing claims. With one body so clearly impacting on the role of the other and the same individual leading both a clear conflict of interest could in fact be perceived in this particular case. 
The bill represents yet another example of New Zealand First keeping the faith with those who voted for us and for our policies. I finish by saying that some talk and some do. New Zealand First is in the latter category. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the first reading of the Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill. My colleague Chris Finlayson who led our side of the debate has already indicated that National will support this bill’s referral to a select committee. We do so not necessarily because we think it has merit but simply because New Zealand First has raised the issue of conflict of interest. New Zealand First calls it an inherent conflict but we are yet to be convinced that there is an inherent conflict just because there may be a cross-over of people sitting on the tribunal and also chairing it. But we think there may be potential for it and because we value so highly the unique role the Waitangi Tribunal plays in the settlement of historical injustice we want to make sure that the integrity of the process is maintained as we go forward and that the integrity of the work the tribunal does is also maintained. 
New Zealand First has raised a doubt and we think it is worth the matter going to a select committee so that it can be debated and so we can see whether this issue is real or whether it is more political and suits the purposes of some to raise it at this time in the parliamentary term. So yes we support the bill’s referral to the select committee and that is as far as we go for the moment. We are yet to be convinced of the merit of the bill and we are also yet to be convinced that as the United Future speaker seemed to say people are talking about this. I have not heard people talking about this quite frankly in the 20 years I have been involved in this process. But anyway as I say it is worth debating for the moment. 
If New Zealand First was truly concerned about the process we think there is a greater issue to be addressed and that is basically the ability of the tribunal to do its work in a timely manner. That is where we think a focus should be because as it is the tribunal is totally crowded out with work. It does not have enough people to produce reports and it does not have enough people to hear claims. It is not able to sit regularly and it sometimes has to cancel hearings. We think those are of greater moment to think about than whether there is a perceived potential or inherent conflict of interest. It is disappointing in a way that although we support this bill going to a select committee time has to be given to exploring an issue that in the end may not turn out to be the issue that New Zealand First says it is. 
The other thing is that this is not the only tribunal or judicial body in New Zealand where this kind of crossover occurs and I hope Pita Paraone who proposes this bill is aware of that. My colleague Chris Finlayson said earlier that High Court judges sit on civil appeal divisions and they also sit on the Environment Court—they are sitting judges—so there is already a crossover not just in this court and not just in this tribunal. It makes it look like we are picking a little bit on the Maori courts or the Maori-related tribunals. In that regard I think Metiria Turei does make a point. I would hate for that to go to select committee. I am for open informed debate on this before the select committee but I would hate it if this was turned into a witch-hunt about the work of the tribunal and something that marred its undoubted worth to the Treaty settlement process. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I will take a short call. I find myself in substantial agreement with much of what a number of members have said tonight. I am reassured by Pita Paraone and Brian Donnelly that there is no intention in any way to impugn the integrity of a particular incumbent and it is good to have that reassurance on the record of the House. I accept unreservedly their assurance that this is a matter of principle and structure rather than any personal witch-hunt and it is good to have that acknowledged. 
Although I affirm the undertaking given that Labour members will support the passage of this bill to the select committee I think it is equally fair to say that at this stage like the member who has just resumed her seat we are not convinced of the merit of the notion of inherent conflict of interest. Points have been made by other speakers this evening about the I suppose inevitability at one level of conflicts of interest that happen from time to time in a jurisdiction the size of New Zealand. Protocols exist whether in courts in tribunals or in other areas of commercial life and these things are required all the time to be in place. So there needs to be an assurance that those protocols are being followed. 
One of the things I would say that judges have to be particularly mindful of whether they be on tribunals or in courts is the perception of conflict of interest. In some ways that is more difficult to deal with because perception is one of those grey areas where the notion that someone might not be doing quite the right thing is often more difficult to deal with than a cut and dried case and this is an issue that I think the select committee can usefully explore. 
I think there have been occasions when a judge who presides over a hearing of the tribunal identifies a possible conflict of interest. I remind members though that the judge is one of several members of the tribunal who will hear a claim—there is not an individual judge sitting alone—and all members whether or not they are judges need to assess whether they have a conflict of interest that might arise in the course of the hearing. On occasions members including judges disclose conflicts that can allow parties to request an alternative presiding officer or ask a member to withdraw or file a memorandum and I think that all these things are perfectly legitimate. 
Perhaps a more common example of conflict of interest especially for presiding officers is that they may have acted as counsel to one or other of the parties involved in the proceeding at some earlier stage in their career. In these situations again the matter is usually resolved in the same way as for other court proceedings. 
I say in summary that there is a fair issue here for the select committee to have a careful look at but certainly the Labour Party is not persuaded that there is an inherent conflict of interest. I will finish as I started. I am reassured—and I think it is good that we have it clearly on the record of the House—by the fact that this bill seeks to explore the question of principle and in no way impugns the integrity of any individual official or judge holding office at this time. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 First of all I want to reassure this House that the intent of this bill is not to impugn the integrity of anyone particularly the person who is holding the two positions that this bill refers to. Secondly I am quite saddened by the fact that the last three members—all of Maori descent—have made as part of their argument use of the ethnic background of those people that the Maori Land Court serves. As the House will be aware when I introduced this bill I made no reference to people being of Maori descent. There was no intent to belittle or deride those people of Maori descent who were indeed clients of the Maori Land Court and the tribunal. I made reference to the word “Maori” only in describing the tribunal and the particular court that this bill is all about. I am really saddened to hear those members defend their arguments by using what we call the race card. 
However I ought to say that given that people obviously recognise that there is or could be an inherent conflict of interest this bill is looking at the use of retired judges. When I say “retired judges” I have before me information supplied to me by the Attorney-General that shows there is a total of 40—and I say 40—judges who have retired from the Supreme Court Court of Appeal High Court District Court Family Court Environment Court Employment Court and the Maori Land Court over the past 5 years. Quite clearly there is a supply of people who are well qualified to fill the positions that I talk about. 
The last speaker from National indicated that National members thought it would be more appropriate to address the issue of the timeliness of settlements. I suggest that if the present chairman of the tribunal was divested of his duties as Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court then he would be able to provide more time to addressing issues before the tribunal. I heard the concerns expressed by the first speaker from National and I bow to his legal background. I think the questions he raised certainly warrant further investigation. I support his contention and I believe that the select committee I have recommended this bill be referred to would be the place where this matter should be discussed. 
This bill does not aim or intend to do away with the Treaty of Waitangi as some members of the House who have already spoken are suggesting. This bill is intended to enhance the operation of both the tribunal and the Maori Land Court to ensure that the person who is in charge of these two respective jurisdictions is not confined or limited to the duties of the other position. 
 This bill is certainly aimed at removing any perception that people might have of any inherent conflict of interest. The last speaker from the Government the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations made reference to the use of the word “perception” and I believe that in the wider community and even amongst Maori there is a perception of a possible conflict of interest. In the lead up to the passing of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill a senior member of Government made reference to a judge of the Maori Land Court and said that possibly that judge had had a conflict of interest when making her determination. 
I thank those who have supported this bill and I look forward to seeing it discussed by the appropriate select committee. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4.