Hereora Dave: Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Hereora Dave: Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16721] 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 Firstly I acknowledge the member in charge of the bill Pita Paraone. It is not often that a member is able to have his bill pulled from the ballot in this way. The other fact is that Pita Paraone is Maori and it is not often that we see bills coming through from Maori. I acknowledge him in relation to those two matters. I also reaffirm the undertaking given by Labour to support the passage of the bill through to the Justice and Electoral Committee as that support was part of the confidence and supply agreement with New Zealand First. 
I take this opportunity to respond to an issue raised prior to the dinner break. I think it is important that we have the option of referring bills to select committees—particularly for those of us who are not involved with the particular select committee—because it gives us more information. The select committee process has given us the opportunity to arrive at an informed decision on this bill so I do think it is important. It has given that opportunity to those of us who are not associated with that select committee. 
I read in the report back that the bill “proposes to amend the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 to remove the ability of serving Judges of the High Court or the Maori Land Court (including the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court) to serve as members of the Waitangi Tribunal. Instead it provides that retired Judges of the High Court or Maori Land Court (including retired Chief Judges of the Maori Land Court) be members of the Waitangi Tribunal; and that a member who is either a retired Judge of the High Court or retired Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court should preside as Chairperson of the Tribunal.” 
The bill cites an inherent conflict of interest as to the reasons for the proposed amendments. We do not support that view. We do not consider that there is an inherent conflict with sitting judges of the High Court or the Maori Land Court serving on the tribunal or with the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court acting as chairperson of the Waitangi Tribunal. It has worked I think well in the past and we are not experiencing any major problems. 
The Waitangi Tribunal as we know is charged with making recommendations to the Government on claims brought by Maori relating to actions or omissions of the Crown that may breach the principles of the Treaty and the Maori Land Court makes decisions relating to ownership and administration of Maori land in accordance with Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. I hold the very strong view that consideration should be given to the requirement for the Maori Land Court and Waitangi Tribunal members to have similar qualities—that is the understanding of tribal structures and of the Maori land history customs and traditions. They are competencies that are relevant for the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court and chairperson of the Waitangi Tribunal—especially considering that the pool of judges who meet those criteria is quite limited. So there may be practical difficulties for a person holding both positions if he or she does not have adequate resources or the ability to delegate that responsibility. On that point I note that the tribunal’s chairperson currently has the power to delegate work to an appointed deputy. I consider that this option at the very least partially addresses the concerns about workload. 
I also take on board the concern raised by the member that there are other people in New Zealand who have the knowledge or have even greater knowledge than a Maori Land Court judge on matters relating to issues of Maori and in doing so I note that the role should be made available to others and not be limited to the judiciary. However we consider that the amendments proposed could severely limit the ability of the Waitangi Tribunal to draw on the expertise of those best qualified to act as members. Currently there are not enough judges around with the high level of understanding of Maori grievances and tribal systems that they need in order to serve just as members of the tribunal. 
On occasions judges disclose conflicts that allow parties to request an alternative presiding officer or ask a member to withdraw or file a memorandum which I think is perfectly legitimate. A more common example of conflict of interest for presiding officers is where they may have acted as counsel to one or other of the parties involved at some earlier stage of their careers. In that instance again the matter is usually resolved in the same way by the court proceedings. 
Finally I say again that in our view there is no inherent conflict with sitting judges of the High Court or Maori Land Court serving on the Waitangi Tribunal or with the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court acting as a chairperson of the tribunal. It has worked well in the past as I said without major problems. We consider that the amendments proposed could severely limit the ability of the Waitangi Tribunal to draw on the expertise of those best qualified to act as members and there are not enough judges with the high level of understanding of Maori grievances and tribal systems that is needed for them to serve as members of the Waitangi Tribunal. 
In finishing I again acknowledge the member in charge of the bill. I think it is important that we as members of this Parliament have the opportunity to have this debate in order to be able to critique the report from the select committee so that members can reaffirm their position as to which way to vote on this matter.