Donnelly Brian: Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Donnelly Brian: Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:10298] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 Firstly I want to make it clear to my colleague from Tai Tokerau and my colleague from the Greens that there is absolutely no suggestion because of the Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill that there is any concern within New Zealand First about a Maori being chair of the Waitangi Tribunal or Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court. We have always believed in the best person for the job. The question here is whether those two positions should be held by the same person. 
Secondly I make the comment that New Zealand First has never made any public comment about Chief Judge Joe Williams or about any Maori Land Court judge and I want that put on record. However the genesis of this bill lies in the New Zealand First manifesto—that group of pledges we went to the public of New Zealand with saying we would use whatever means we could to advance those policy platforms. 
Our Treaty of Waitangi policy is a comprehensive thoughtful and cohesive set of steps that need to be carried through and the first of these is to remove all references to the principles of the Treaty and associated terms from all legislation and regulations where they exist. I have to say that the bill to that effect in the name of Doug Woolerton has already passed its first reading and submissions on it are about to be heard by the Law and Order Committee. 
New Zealand First’s second policy platform is to convert the Waitangi Tribunal to a Waitangi Commission. That would create an agency that could advance claims in a more timely way as well as provide the Minister of Finance and the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations with a greater oversight of the functioning of the agency designed to resolve historical grievances. That is how it should be. The Treaty was between the Crown and Maori. The grievances are with the Crown and Ministers—not a pile of bureaucrats—represent the Crown. The Act would have to be amended to provide the new commission with specificity and focus. 
The third part of the trifecta is a pledge to remove the inherent conflict of interest that exists within the Act with the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court also assuming the role of the chairman of the tribunal. Although there are obvious synergies in combining the two roles they are clearly outweighed by the inherent or potential or maybe just perceived conflict of interest that occurs between the roles of the Maori Land Court and the tribunal—which would be the commission if we had our way. 
I reiterate the comments of my colleague Pita Paraone that this is not a criticism of the person currently in those positions. An independent chairperson will overcome any perception of conflict of interest. He or she will overcome any potential conflict of interest being acted out. It is to be noted that this conflict of interest which is the subject of this bill was clearly illustrated in the recent seabed and foreshore issue when the Waitangi Tribunal made recommendations—including recommendations on the role of the Maori Land Court in hearing claims. With one body so clearly impacting on the role of the other and the same individual leading both a clear conflict of interest could in fact be perceived in this particular case. 
The bill represents yet another example of New Zealand First keeping the faith with those who voted for us and for our policies. I finish by saying that some talk and some do. New Zealand First is in the latter category.