te Heuheu Georgina: Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
te Heuheu Georgina: Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16707] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I am very pleased to take a call on the second reading of the Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill if only to express my relief that a majority of the Justice and Electoral Committee decided that the bill was without merit in terms of what it purported to do. 
When the bill was first read in this House some time ago National was reasonably upfront in stating quite clearly that although we were very happy to support it going to the select committee we saw little merit in it. I said that as the issues in it had been raised—and raised in a way that New Zealand First often tends to raise issues to do with Treaty matters especially in an election year—I was of the opinion that the bill should go to a select committee so that those issues could be discussed debated and considered fairly if only to maintain the integrity of the process of the Waitangi Tribunal which has served this nation very well since 1975. I might add that the tribunal has been the object of study and visits by overseas indigenous peoples and others who have come to see how we have addressed and continue to address the issue of historical claims of the indigenous Maori of New Zealand against the Crown and an examination of the Crown’s conduct pursuant to the Treaty of Waitangi. 
This bill is taking its course and has been to the select committee. As I said we in National thought it should go there but now that it has been there and come back with the majority of the committee against it I think we can all be reasonably satisfied that it has had its proper scrutiny. It was found to be wanting in terms of what it proposed. I will not say that that is what I always thought but what it does present I think is a picture of a functioning forum—unique in the world I might add—that examines Crown conduct vis-à-vis the indigenous people of this nation. 
The bill states that a conflict of interest arises in respect of the fact that the judges of the Maori Land Court sit on the Waitangi Tribunal. There are two different jurisdictions as we are all probably aware. The Waitangi Tribunal was established under its own Act in 1975. It is a permanent commission of inquiry charged with making recommendations to the Government on Crown conduct according to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Gleaning the meanings of those principles or gleaning those principles from a study of the two versions of the Treaty of Waitangi one Maori and one English called for an approach that was more inquiry-driven than strictly legal or adversarial. I have sat on the tribunal and have seen how that inquiry function has been very supportive of the kaupapa. But it is very important none the less as there are quite high stakes here in terms of public interest and the politics of it that it possess—and it still does—a semi-judicial function. 
The Maori Land Court of course has its own separate jurisdiction under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. They are two different jurisdictions and on the face of it—and in fact—they are not in conflict as to the two tasks to be performed. One thing though—the upside of the fact that judges of the Maori Land Court sit on the tribunal—is that there is an understanding of the issues that are likely to come before the tribunal. This is a specialised area of the law. We see that with the Environment Court for instance and with the Employment Court. Those courts deal with specialised areas of the law and the Maori Land Court even more so in terms of what we are dealing with here I think than with some of the other areas of the law. It therefore calls for people with an underlying knowledge of the Maori dynamic Maori iwi structures and so on. 
The second comment on this issue of so-called conflict of interest is that it is not unusual for judges for instance to be able to sit in more than one jurisdiction. This is not something unique in the jurisdiction we are talking about. High Court judges sit on the Court of Appeal and District Court judges and Maori Land Court judges may serve in the Environment Court. As far as I am aware there has never been any suggestion that there is an inherent conflict of interest arising in such situations. The situation is similar here. There is no inherent conflict of interest in Maori Land Court judges serving on the Waitangi Tribunal. The other thing is that members of the judiciary—and I am talking about the wider judiciary—often undertake tasks outside the judicial system. Chairing commissions of inquiry as long as it does not conflict with judges’ judicial role is a practice as well. 
The point is that there is nothing unusual in what is happening here. There is nothing unique about it; it happens across our judiciary. But the very fact that it is raised by New Zealand First tends in my mind to raise the question as to whether we are picking on these two jurisdictions simply because they deal only with Maori issues. I hope not. In any event that has been rejected by the select committee as well. It is proper because the stakes are high in this whole Treaty of Waitangi process that if from time to time issues are raised as to the efficacy of what we are doing here then there is a forum within which we can air these matters and that is what has happened here. 
I hope that as the majority of the House sees no merit in the bill that might convince our colleague who is in charge of it Pita Paraone. I respect his judgment but given that this matter has been widely aired in its second reading—and I have read New Zealand First’s comments in the report back from the select committee—he may have a comment to make about the reasons put forward by the committee and by the majority of MPs in this House as to why his bill ought not to proceed. 
In closing I say that the Government I think today and maybe yesterday has introduced two major settlement bills to the House. After 9 years that is a good thing. I do not make any mention at this moment of National’s position but certainly in the future—as we have said many times—when we make Government which we obviously hope to do in a few months’ time we wish to move the settlement of Treaty injustices forward in a more timely way. If as there seems to be there is wide support by the iwi of the central North Island for the two settlement bills that are now before the House then that makes us pleased as well. The one thing we all want—all of us across the House including New Zealand First despite this bill—is that the momentum for Maori development which has been obvious and spectacular over the last 20 years continues. The entry of those two bills into the House is progress and we will see more of that sort of thing when the election is over and National takes those seats on the other side of the House.