Burton Mark: Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Burton Mark: Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:10300] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I will take a short call. I find myself in substantial agreement with much of what a number of members have said tonight. I am reassured by Pita Paraone and Brian Donnelly that there is no intention in any way to impugn the integrity of a particular incumbent and it is good to have that reassurance on the record of the House. I accept unreservedly their assurance that this is a matter of principle and structure rather than any personal witch-hunt and it is good to have that acknowledged. 
Although I affirm the undertaking given that Labour members will support the passage of this bill to the select committee I think it is equally fair to say that at this stage like the member who has just resumed her seat we are not convinced of the merit of the notion of inherent conflict of interest. Points have been made by other speakers this evening about the I suppose inevitability at one level of conflicts of interest that happen from time to time in a jurisdiction the size of New Zealand. Protocols exist whether in courts in tribunals or in other areas of commercial life and these things are required all the time to be in place. So there needs to be an assurance that those protocols are being followed. 
One of the things I would say that judges have to be particularly mindful of whether they be on tribunals or in courts is the perception of conflict of interest. In some ways that is more difficult to deal with because perception is one of those grey areas where the notion that someone might not be doing quite the right thing is often more difficult to deal with than a cut and dried case and this is an issue that I think the select committee can usefully explore. 
I think there have been occasions when a judge who presides over a hearing of the tribunal identifies a possible conflict of interest. I remind members though that the judge is one of several members of the tribunal who will hear a claim—there is not an individual judge sitting alone—and all members whether or not they are judges need to assess whether they have a conflict of interest that might arise in the course of the hearing. On occasions members including judges disclose conflicts that can allow parties to request an alternative presiding officer or ask a member to withdraw or file a memorandum and I think that all these things are perfectly legitimate. 
Perhaps a more common example of conflict of interest especially for presiding officers is that they may have acted as counsel to one or other of the parties involved in the proceeding at some earlier stage in their career. In these situations again the matter is usually resolved in the same way as for other court proceedings. 
I say in summary that there is a fair issue here for the select committee to have a careful look at but certainly the Labour Party is not persuaded that there is an inherent conflict of interest. I will finish as I started. I am reassured—and I think it is good that we have it clearly on the record of the House—by the fact that this bill seeks to explore the question of principle and in no way impugns the integrity of any individual official or judge holding office at this time.