Flavell Te Ururoa: Arbitration Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Arbitration Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:12181] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Speaker. This bill is a milestone bill for the Maori Party. When my colleague the honourable Mr Hone Harawira last spoke on this bill on 8 May this year he said that land issues are so important to Maori that we were considering an amendment to this bill to refer all Maori land disputes to the Maori Land Court. Within 24 hours we had the amendment on the table to put into effect the idea that Hone had initiated. 
That 24-hour period in May 2007 signalled quite an important moment in  
Hansard 
 when the proposal of an MMP party such as the Maori Party was almost seen to have an opportunity to influence the parliamentary debate. I remember that night quite well. The motion was put “That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Arbitration Amendment Bill that it have the power to consider and if it thinks fit adopt the amendment in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell relating to the arbitration of disputes concerning Maori land.” It was a pretty straightforward argument I thought that centred around the Maori Land Court. 
As I am sure all members of this Parliament would agree the Maori Land Court is the court charged with the responsibility to judge on matters relating to Maori land. It is under the mantle of that responsibility that where there is dispute such matters are rightly put in its hands. But with the Arbitration Amendment Bill there is the potential for decisions and processes to effectively cut across the jurisdiction of the Maori Land Court. 
Therefore we came to the House with a simple request to have the korero to have the debate. We asked the House to accept that we had the power within this Parliament to consider and if it was thought fit at the time to adopt the amendment relating to the arbitration of disputes concerning Maori land. All we wanted was the opportunity for the debate on the amendment to occur. So a party vote was called for in order to determine whether the debate would be held. The scorecard read: New Zealand National 48 Green Party 6 Maori Party 3 ACT New Zealand 2 in support; and New Zealand Labour 49 New Zealand First 7 United Future 3 Progressive 1 Independent 1 against. So the scorecard came up Noes 61 Ayes 59—amendment lost. 
I recount this history because it seems almost ironic now. Here we had measures to improve the processes of arbitration and disputes resolution and to enhance communication—qualities that this House would support and strive towards—yet the House could not return a majority vote of support for my amendment. The request put to the House was not an all-out “open the envelope” recommendation for the support to ensure all Maori aspirations could be transformed into tangible outcomes. It was not even a request for the utilisation of tikanga Maori as an appropriate and apt foundation for disputes resolution processes. All it was about was just having the korero. What was the harm in that? 
We believe the amendments proposed in this bill are now at least positive. We certainly endorse the process of arbitration as an effective method in resolving disputes particularly in regard to commercial litigation. We appreciate too the significant advances that have taken place to ensure that arbitration is now based on an international model developed by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law rather than being a simple rehashing of the English arbitration procedures of 1908. 
The Maori Party believes that the process of arbitration as a consensual method of disputes resolution is particularly aligned with kaupapa Maori particularly the attainment of kotahitanga—the oneness of purpose. The demonstration and influence of consensus models are illustrated in the many many hui throughout the country and have been commented on in many reports of that esteemed body the Waitangi Tribunal. That is the same tribunal by the way that is charged with the function of determining whether matters are inconsistent with the Treaty principles and commenting on proposed legislation if and when requested to do so by Parliament. That is the same tribunal whose recommendations are consistently ignored or shelved to gather dust. 
That aside what has the tribunal said about consensus models? The  
Ngai Tahu Sea Fisheries Report 1992 
 put it fairly clearly when it said: “The Maori consensus process requires a high level of community involvement and debate. New ideas must be allowed to lie for a long time and there are inhibitions on all tribal leaders in expressing a view that has not been tribally approved. Under the consultative processes of Maori nothing can be hurried along.” Consensus therefore which underpins the arbitration process may be one area in which the Crown is prepared to learn from Maori as to effective strategies and time-tested experiences can be applied to resolve commercial and other disputes. 
Another key issue on which the Maori Party sought the influence of an independent Maori voice was the concept of consumer protection. The bill improves the level of protection provided to consumers by proposing that an arbitration agreement takes effect only if arbitration has specifically been agreed to by consumer and business enterprise. In addition jurisdiction of disputes tribunals is removed if both parties agree that arbitration is the most appropriate form of disputes resolution. These are important initiatives that may well lead to a decrease in the disputes resolved through the court process as well as protecting the interests of the consumers and the Maori Party supports them. 
I want to take us back to the issue that I introduced tonight the concept that where Maori land is the subject of dispute it should be dealt with by the Maori Land Court. If we are looking to truly respect the concept of consensus and if we are truly looking to pay heed to the interests and priorities of consumers then accordingly we must rely on protocols and procedures that are already in place rather than walking roughshod over Maori—again. The Maori Land Court would be able to deal with disputes regarding Maori land even when one of the parties is not Maori. The Maori Land Court has the capacity to deal with such disputes in an effective and cost-efficient manner because of its awareness of tikanga Maori and how this affects Maori attitudes towards land. 
We know also that there is a precedent for Maori land disputes to be taken from the general courts to their rightful home the Maori Land Court in two other current pieces of legislation. In the Fencing Act jurisdiction Maori land disputes are able to be dealt with in the Maori Land Court under section 26 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act. Similarly in the property law jurisdiction similar models apply that are relevant to sections 2 to 25 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act. So if it has been done before it can be done again. 
We continue to support this bill because we do support the promotion of arbitration as a useful tool in solving disputes. We know that the practice of arbitration has not been as extensive as was originally envisaged. In the Ministry of Justice’s 2004 report into alternative disputes resolution it stated that arbitration was used only in the very smallest of cases—some 6 percent of 1274 disputes—so anything that can increase the satisfaction and confidence from lawyers mediators and consumers that arbitration can be effective is worthy of our support. But we cannot leave this debate without expressing our profound disappointment at the inability of Government parties to consider any ideas other than the ones that they put forward.