Hide Rodney: Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Hide Rodney: Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4818] 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I think we have a problem here and I look forward to the Minister taking a call to answer whether that is what this Committee intends. I also picked up on what Mr Jim Peters said and I ask him whether he thinks that is a good idea. 
I now turn to page 3 of the bill and ask whether new clause 5AC(2)(c) should be struck out given what we have heard today. The National Party said it was not the case that a chairperson could get rid of a person because of his or her personal circumstances. I think that Georgina te Heuheu now accepts that clause stands on its own. I have checked with the officials and as I understand their explanation they have said yes to that. With the greatest respect I say that cannot be right. 
Murray Smith 
: You are wrong. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I look forward to United Future’s explanation. What am I wrong about? 
Murray Smith 
: It does stand on its own. It does not—well I will speak to it. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I shall read it for the member: “in the opinion of the Chairperson it would be unreasonable to expect the presiding officer or member holding office under clause 5(1) to continue to participate in the inquiry into the particular claim or other matter because of his or her personal circumstances.” In common language that means—and Murray Smith says I am wrong—that if the chairperson thinks that because of a Waitangi Tribunal member’s personal circumstances he or she should not sit and hear that claim then he or she is gone. Am I wrong on that? 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: Yes. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: So says Georgina te Heuheu and I look forward to her explanation. I pay due homage because I am in that mood today to Murray Smith and his expert legal training and insight into this matter. However I am afraid that the courts would look at what the Minister said and would not consider what Mr Smith thought. I would like the Minister to take a call to explain the scope and discretion provided for under new clause 5AC(2)(c) that would enable someone to be replaced. What does the Minister think are the personal circumstances that in the opinion of the chairperson would enable a person to be replaced? I say that sincerely because I think that we could find ourselves in a situation where—given the politics the years and the difficulties of the claims—clause 5AC(2)(c) would have some input. I tell Georgina te Heuheu that it will not be enough to say that a person can be replaced only if he or she is sick because paragraph (c) is not needed. As I understand it paragraph (b) takes care of a person if he or she is sick and physically cannot participate so why does the legislation have paragraph (c)? 
Jim Peters 
: It stands alone. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: It is a stand-alone clause and I hope I am not doing the officials a disservice when I say that it has been confirmed as a stand-alone clause. I think that is what they said but it is not right. With advice from his officials I would like the Minister to take a call to explain that because I think that any judge would look at that provision and say: “Yes the chairperson has the ability to decide that a person should not participate or continue to participate in an inquiry because of his or her personal circumstances.” What on earth could that person’s personal circumstances be? They could be anything whatsoever. It seems to me that we are giving a chairperson the power to take a person off an inquiry and put a new person in but why would we allow that power to reside with the chairperson? If that is not what that clause is about what is it about?