Jones Dail: Estimates Debate —  Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Jones Dail: Estimates Debate —  Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7272] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I shall speak to a number of the votes—Attorney-General Serious Fraud and Treaty Negotiations—and I mention the Serious Fraud Office first. Interestingly enough one of the people involved in these types of arrangements—mortgage refinancing purchase arrangements—came to see me as a lawyer about 18 months ago. It was fairly obvious that the person of Fijian extraction did not understand what was going on. As a lawyer I told her not to go ahead with it and she did not go ahead with it. Unfortunately the situation that arises in many of these cases in west Auckland is that people are up to their limit on their financing; they need to refinance to be able to keep their house. They refinance by way of selling the house to the lender—having what used to be called “equity and redemption”—and the whole situation just falls apart. 
Technically it is not a scam but as a lawyer I advised my client not to go ahead with it. Sadly she was so over-financed that there was a mortgagee sale anyway. I just make that point. Of course as far as the ACT party is concerned and as far as the Labour Party is concerned I am sure there is no one in the ACT party who has pleaded guilty to fraud. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: No. 
DAIL JONES 
: There is no one in the ACT party who has pleaded guilty to fraud— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Or uttering. 
DAIL JONES 
: —or uttering and had that conviction discharged by the court. I am sure there is no one in the ACT party who has pleaded guilty and had an initial conviction for fraud. 
Going back to the estimates all I can say is that from New Zealand First’s point of view we have an absolutely hopeless Attorney-General in the Chamber tonight. As we all know the role of an Attorney-General by convention is that the person must exercise independent judgment impartially without exceptions for party political goals; the incumbent should be free of any compromising portfolio or policy obligations although it is permissible for the Attorney-General to consult Cabinet colleagues on issues having political implications. Does this Attorney-General come within these categories? Of course she does not. She holds other Cabinet portfolios and takes an interest especially in items like the Supreme Court Bill which are mentioned in the estimates. As a member of the select committee I asked her what sort of consensus there was amongst Maori people for support for the Privy Council. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: What would you know about that? 
DAIL JONES 
: We got a letter from the Attorney-General which I will read to that honourable member. That letter dated 23 September 2002 referred to various meetings: “These meetings resulted in a general consensus that the time is right to remove appeals to the Privy Council and establish a court of final appeal.” She was saying that that is what the Maori people of New Zealand had said at those various meetings. Now we know that that is very far from the truth because submission after submission to the select committee has indicated that that is not the case. Up and down this country Ngai Tahu do not agree. They say they want constitutional change before any consideration is given to the abolition of appeals to the Privy Council. This Minister misled I believe the select committee at the time last year and continues to do so. 
We were told that the thing we should do is go to the hui at Turangi over the weekend and we would get the real indication from them and that we in the select committee and New Zealand First would be proved wrong. So what do we get from the hui report which I have read and I am sure members of the Labour Party do not even know exists? I shall quote from some of the answers regarding the final Court of Appeal: “Important issues require wider debate within Maoridom”; “Lack of information sharing at the Auckland hui”—the one to which the Minister referred; “Dissatisfied with consultation”; “No adequate consultation on bill. Consultation was bad. There was no notice. Need to go back to people hapu iwi.” That is the message to the Minister; and the Associate Minister of Maori Affairs supports the view that we should have much wider consultation on this bill. It is clear that the select committee was misled by this Minister last year and the Labour members especially the Maori members I am sure are now greatly concerned about the trend being taken in this legislation. 
As far as Vote Treaty Negotiations is concerned we have been talking about the year 2014 tonight! The answers we have been getting from the Minister in the chair on this issue indicate that it will be hundreds of years before the young Maori lad in Otara or up in Whangarei or in Porirua ever sees a fish or a dollar or anything. All the money is going to the consultants; all the money is going to the lawyers as I know from the way in which lawyers charge; and it is going to those people who get up there run around get briefs as bureaucrats sit on the tribunal and collect all the money. This situation will go on for ever. It is a disgrace and New Zealand First is going to do something about it.