Smith Murray: Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Smith Murray: Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4822] 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 I have just a couple of brief comments to make about clause 5AC. I am pleased to advise that the officials have agreed that my interpretation of those provisions is correct. Another quite appropriate example of where clause 5AC would be necessary is the situation that arose when the Hon Georgina te Heuheu became a member of Parliament. Those are personal circumstances that would mean she would have to stand down and which would require a replacement to be made. 
I was previously dealing with clause 5AD and talking about whether the chairperson should be another panel member who is appointed to take that role if he or she does not have the requisite period of 7 years of legal practice. To balance that the role of the presiding officer is largely a chairmanship role. That is its distinctive function. It is important that the person who takes on that role is able to bring the skills to look at correct judicial procedure natural justice principles and rules of evidence and that the person has the sort of training that lawyers have in order to conduct the hearing fairly. It is no more important for the presiding officer to have knowledge of what has been going on in the hearing than any other member placed in the situation. On balance I think it is important for the replacement chairman to have those skills. I therefore support the select committee’s decision to recommend that that clause be struck out so that the chairperson needs to have legal training; that is the correct way to go. 
In looking at Part 2 and at the changes to the references there I note that the National Party has objected to it on the basis that it believes that Te Mangai Paho should be accountable to the Minister of Broadcasting. That is totally irrelevant to those changes because it is a legitimate decision of the Government. It is the Government’s prerogative to make that decision. The situation we face is that in its powers the Government has agreed that responsibility for Te Mangai Paho should pass to the Minister of Maori Affairs. That having been done the clause then makes for a bit of a nonsense because it states that the Minister—that is the Minister of Maori Affairs—must consult the Minister of Maori Affairs. 
My only concern is that that may be so for the current situation but a future Government may decide to change that in some other fashion. I would have preferred to see an amendment that said something to the effect that where the responsible Minister is not the Minister of Maori Affairs then the Minister shall consult the Minister of Maori Affairs. That would have left open the option to allow another Minister to take part while still having to consult the Minister of Maori Affairs. As we now have the clause if Te Mangai Paho went back to the Minister of Broadcasting he could exercise his discretion without any consultation with the Minister of Maori Affairs and I am not sure that that is really desirable or something that ought to be encouraged. 
That is really the only comment I have to make on that. The legislation will provide a remedy for the immediate future for what would have been a strange situation with a Minister consulting himself or herself. I just caution that any change will mean that we may have to include those clauses again in a fashion that is hopefully a bit more flexible. 
Despite Part 3 being a very brief provision I believe that it is very significant. I am a little concerned with it because I do not think it goes far enough in increasing the number of fishing licences for Ngati Tuwharetoa from 50 to 200. One could say that that is a 400 percent increase but if one bears in mind that there has been no increase since 1926 one sees that it is an increase of only 5 percent per year. I note that in 1926 a total of approximately 4900 licences were issued. In the 2000-01 figures from the Department of Conservation there were 74293 general licences issued which is a general increase of 1500 percent or an increase of 20 percent per annum. When there are already 74000 licences increasing the licences of Ngati Tuwharetoa from 50 to 200 that is a drop in the bucket—it is only 0.27 percent of the overall number of licences. If we took it on the basis of Maori population the closest I could get was in 1926 when there were apparently 1104 Maori in Taupo county. In 1996 it was stated that there were 28998 Ngati Tuwharetoa which is a 2600 percent increase in the approximate number of Maori.