Turner Judy: Maori Purposes Bill — First Reading 
Turner Judy: Maori Purposes Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:3965] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak to the first reading of the Maori Purposes Bill which appears to attract as many questions as it seeks to answer. We acknowledge the fact that there are some questions we would like to see answered in order to secure our support beyond the first reading but we are happy for the discussion to be had and for submissions to be made. 
The bill we note seeks to amend four Acts of Parliament. It is interesting that the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 is to be amended to increase the cap on the maximum number of permanent Maori Land Court judges from eight to 14. A lot of people speaking to this bill tonight have talked about an expectation that six more judges would be added immediately. However the question raised in my mind was that there is the potential for another six but I guess they could be added as they were needed. So I would like to hear that area quantified a little more as to whether the intention is to appoint six new judges immediately or whether we intend to do that on some sort of incremental basis. 
The second issue is around the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 and I suspect that is the most controversial issue this amendment bill seeks to address. The bill intends to set 1 September 2008 as the closing date for submitting historical Treaty claims to the Waitangi Tribunal. This move poses a lot of questions. First of all why that date? Is it anticipated to be before the next election which means we might have a political agenda here or is it because we believe realistically that outstanding claims can be lodged successfully by that date? If the latter is the case the question is whether the Government intends to further resource the issue of Treaty claims so that those claims can be lodged in a timely way. 
 I believe that there is a real need to consider the claims in a timely way and I have concerns about some of the dates bandied around this place as they would mean that many iwi and hapu would be waiting a very long time and the number of kaumatua who would pass on without seeing a settlement would grow steadily year by year. However I also agree that rushing the process in a way that is unhelpful to that process would be equally as devastating. 
I have a concern that the Treaty currently in New Zealand society is coloured a little by the historical grievance process which makes it difficult for a lot of New Zealanders to consider the Treaty in terms of it having any current or future applications. I think that issue needs to be addressed in the future certainly in terms of constitutional thinking. It concerns me that sometimes we are captured by just one part of the Treaty’s application which is its historical grievance process. 
There are two other issues regarding the Maori Fisheries Act and the fourth amendment to the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act of 2004 about which I would like a lot more information to help me get my head around them. Certainly the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act appropriates for Maori some exciting developments in the area of marine farming and technology and Maori rightly want to continue to be proactively included as that area develops. 
I recently had the opportunity—and it was a fantastic opportunity—to attend a Maori business development hui in Hamilton. I was really encouraged to see the competence and the level of interest shown by key stakeholder groups and key people within Maoridom who want to see Maori business interests progress extensively. They talked very openly. I appreciated their raw honesty at that hui about the challenges they are facing regarding governance and management issues. I found that there was no pretending about the kinds of ways they will have to move and change and even the possible challenges to tikanga that will need to happen for those issues to be advanced. I was impressed with everything I saw and heard. 
When even in this last week we have been talking about how Maori can be overrepresented in the negative social indicators in this country it was encouraging to sit in a very different environment and hear about some of the very positive things that are happening. There is not just a small dot at the end of the tunnel for Maori there is a huge glaring light of potential and success. It is already happening and we need to celebrate that. I will be interested to see how that potential is represented through the proposed amendments in this bill. 
One of the interesting things I want to alert people to as I conclude this first reading speech is in regard to the controversial area of setting a date by which Treaty settlements need to be lodged. I picked up a very interesting thing in a Cabinet paper on this matter. The paper talked about the fact that for this move to be successful firstly it would need to have a targeted communication strategy to make sure that the goal could be reached. But the other thing I thought was even more interesting was that there was an acknowledgment—I am not even quite sure what this means but I want to read it to members—that it was possible that Maori could settle their claims with the Crown through the direct negotiation process without a registered claim as there is no statutory constraint on who the Crown may choose to negotiate with. 
I think that means that even if we close the process somehow on 1 September 2008 somehow there will still be opportunities for new claims to be lodged in an unofficial capacity with the Crown if the Crown so chooses to negotiate—which is kind of an interesting conundrum. I would be very interested to see what submissions are made in that regard to the Maori Affairs Committee. United Future does not have representation on the Maori Affairs Committee so we will be reliant on hearing back from those on the committee and having a chance to find out what submitters say. We are very happy at this stage to support the first reading.