Hide Rodney: Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Hide Rodney: Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4823] 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I look forward to the Minister getting some serious advice over the lunch break and coming back and telling this Committee what the law is. We are not interested in what the select committee envisages or what it thinks this legislation does; we are interested in what this law actually is. I am not very interested in Mr Murray Smith’s thinking in regard to what the law might be. It is very clear. Clause 5AA gives a chairperson the power to appoint a replacement. Clause 5AC says the replacement can be made according to the chairperson’s opinion of the person’s personal circumstances. It has to be wrong that a chairperson who is halfway through an inquiry can replace a person who does not want to leave. For everyone who is sitting there thinking that that absolutely cannot happen I say it can. A simple matter of drafting could allow people a way round that. All the panel member needs is the ability to resign from the panel—not the tribunal—for the purposes of the inquiry and if that person decides to resign he or she can get the chairperson to appoint a replacement. 
As it stands the chairperson has the power to replace a person against his or her will and that has to be wrong. Given what Mr Murray Smith is saying what would be wrong with making a quick drafting change to say that if a person’s personal circumstances are such that he or she chooses to resign from the panel the chairperson may appoint a replacement? I ask the Minister to please get some advice on that over the lunch break and to come back while we are still in the Committee stage and let us settle this matter. 
Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I thank members of Parliament because I think we are getting to a position where we understand we have a problem. The problem is to do with section 5AA in clause 5 which relates to the chairperson’s discretion in appointing a replacement officer because of a person’s personal circumstances. I think that it is a growing concern in Parliament about just what the scope of that discretion could be. The Leader of the House has foreshadowed that there may be a change and we are interested in that. 
I just make the point that the first difficulty we are dealing with is that the cases before the tribunal are taking so long. Is Parliament satisfied that cases that started in 1991 have not been reported on? Is Mahara Okeroa saying that he is satisfied? This is a huge problem. Just allowing people to be placed on the panel is not necessarily the best solution because we will have a situation with this fix—and this is why we oppose the bill—that people could be reporting on a case when they did not hear the evidence. That cannot be right so I think we need to look at the first problem and try to speed up the process. 
We also have a problem with clause 5AC(3) which refers to an adequate record of an inquiry. If there is an inadequate record of the inquiry then the chairperson cannot replace anyone. I look to the Minister to explain what an inadequate record is. I know that my colleague Stephen Franks is busy drafting an amendment so that the chairperson cannot replace a person unless he or she resigns for personal reasons. I understand that one of the concerns is the nature of iwi and Maori connectedness. People can have connections in a roundabout way. That is a concern and a person may choose not to go. Do we not then have to look at whom we are appointing to the Waitangi Tribunal in the first place? We have to ask ourselves if we are to hold the Waitangi Tribunal in a position of respect should not the rules that apply to the Waitangi Tribunal also be the same rules that apply to every other quasi-judicial procedure? I look to Government members and to members who sat on the Maori Affairs Committee to give us some guidance. ACT members will take a further call on this matter I am sure because we are not happy with the thought that a chairperson could simply replace a member of a panel because in his or her opinion that member’s personal circumstances make him or her unfit to be on it. That discretion is too wide. In fact it is unlimited and it needs changing.