Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16707] 
Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed from 21 May. 
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. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Could I just clarify where New Zealand First is on the speaking list. We are on a second reading and have just had the second speech from a National member so are we No. 8 or No. 10 in the speaking list of 12? If we are No. 8 it means that the Greens the Maori Party United Future and ACT have all missed out on an opportunity to speak—that is if they wanted to speak. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Could everyone other than Dail Jones sit down please. 
DAIL JONES 
: I mention it for the sake of the Maori Party members if they had wanted to speak. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Can I deal with the point of order please. 
DAIL JONES 
: The point of order is that they have lost their opportunity to speak. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I have heard the point of order and I am now going to adjudicate on it and explain. 
DAIL JONES 
: We have no objection to— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Thank you very much. Can you please sit? The first people to speak in this second reading 2 or 3 weeks ago were from New Zealand First and National. Labour should have taken the call when we came into the debate today. It was taken by National. I will now resume the order as at No. 3. We will have Labour the Greens the Maori Party United Future ACT and then we will skip a National speaker and go on. Thank you. 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS (Labour) 
: 
 Te mea tuatahi maku kei te mihi atu ki a koe e te whaea Georgina i roto i au nei tirohanga mo tenei pire e pa ana ki te Ropu o te Taraipiunara. Na reira kei te mihi atu. 
[ 
The first thing for me is to acknowledge your views madam Georgina in respect of this bill about the Waitangi Tribunal 
.] 
I am just acknowledging the contribution by the Hon Georgina te Heuheu in terms of her wise observations about this bill. I am very interested in making a contribution to this bill because it talks about conflicts of interest. 
Na tuarua kei te mihi atu ki a koe e te whanaunga e Pita nau nei tenei take i whakapuaki ake hei korerotanga hei whakawhitiwhititanga whakaaro mo nga ahuatanga e pa ana ki te tribunal. 
[ 
Secondly I acknowledge you Pita the relative the one responsible for this bill as we debate and deliberate aspects relating to the tribunal 
.]  
I am acknowledging also the contribution and the introduction of this bill by our colleague Pita Paraone. It actually goes to the core of what the Waitangi Tribunal is all about. I supported the introduction of the Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill and its referral to the Justice and Electoral Committee. The reason was the unclear nature of the process in terms of proposed or perceived conflicts of interest. I think it is very important that when we look at a judiciary—specifically the tribunal and the tribunal’s functions—we can have confidence in it. Irrespective of the make-up of the tribunal the people of New Zealand both Maori and non-Maori have to be confident that the people in our jurisdictions have the ability and integrity to carry out their duties without conflict and without persuasion by anybody. 
At the time of the bill’s introduction I read its explanatory note which comes from our colleague Pita Paraone who is the architect of the bill. It states: “It seems highly dubious to allow serving Judges of either court to preside over matters on the Waitangi Tribunal when they may have presided over those matters in the High Court or the Maori Land Court.” Reading that stirs up ideas that there may be duplication or some conflicts of interest in terms of the jurisdiction of judges and rightly so—I think the matter needed to be raised. This issue has been in the minds of many people involved not only in the tribunal but—God help us—in the Maori Land Court. 
So I think that allowing the bill to go to a select committee was the appropriate process. It is in that arena that we listen to submissions from people who have experience and knowledge about these matters. The select committee process also allows us to canvass the general public and those stakeholders who may be affected and who are intending to make submissions to the tribunal or the Maori Land Court. That is the process that would eradicate or alleviate any concerns about the issues of proposed or perceived conflicts of interest. 
I know that my colleague Pita Paraone is disappointed but I thank him for raising the issue. I think this Parliament owes him that gratitude and I would expect that members of that select committee would take on board his real concerns about the perceived conflict of interest. As I said before I was one of the ones who supported the bill’s referral to the Justice and Electoral Committee. 
Now the bill has come back to the House and I thank the select committee members for their very comprehensive report. I am mindful of the conclusion of that report where the select committee says: “We consider that there is no inherent conflict of interest in sitting judges of the High Court or Maori Land Court serving on the Waitangi Tribunal or the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court acting as the Chairperson of the Waitangi Tribunal.” Well that is good enough for me. Although I understand the disappointment of my colleague Pita Paraone I think he can understand and also appreciate the objectivity that has been brought to the process by the select committee and I am glad to hear that that sentiment has also come from the Hon Georgina te Heuheu. 
I have always been concerned about the integrity of the process not only of the Waitangi Tribunal but also of the Maori Land Court. This bill goes to the heart of the functions of the tribunal when we talk about the integrity of those who are presiding. Some of the decisions of the tribunal have been rather dubious. I understand some of the reasons why and I understand the environment that the tribunal has to work in. It must decide whether the evidence that is put before it is historical fantasy—made up by people who have some sort of cultural diversions if you like and who have been watching  
The Lord of the Rings 
 and coming before the tribunal with that type of evidence—or historical fact. 
There are two phenomena within this jurisdiction. There are those who have many stories to tell. There are those who still believe that Maui fished the North Island out of the sea—I am one of them because I am a fisherman. But it is not necessarily factual and it is not necessarily true. So when these matters are put before the tribunal we need the rangatira both men and women who have wide knowledge about tikanga and tekanga. They are two different things. Tikanga is the culture of Maori and tekanga is the spinning of a lot of bullshit—with respect Madam Assistant Speaker. That is the inherent difference. Sometimes when rangatira are sitting up there they are confused at the difference between tikanga and tekanga. 
I see that my colleague Pita Sharples has a smile on his face. He knows what I am talking about. In the past I have sometimes seen him presiding on both sides of the table and I do not know whether he is telling me tekanga or tikanga! He has advocated in this House this afternoon about tennis players—about Ngati Kahungunu being tennis players mai ra ano since 1840. I can tell members that the Ngapuhi have been tennis players since the 1600s. Our rocks our tennis balls were a bloody sight bigger than theirs. So that comes back to tekanga again. 
I come back to the bill Madam Assistant Speaker; I am just saying that therein is the integrity. We are satisfied that the select committee has done its job and I support the committee’s appropriate recommendation. 
No reira kei te mihi ki a tatou katoa. E Pita tena koe me wo whakatauki a ko koe te rangatira o te purei paoro o te tenehi. Taku korero ki a koe ata korero. Kei kona taku whanaunga a Hone e titiro ana ki a koe a te wa e tu ai te All Blacks ki te purei tena pea kua wini tatou. No reira huri ana i to tatou Whare tena koutou. 
[ 
So I acknowledge all of us. Peter greetings to you and your wise sayings. You said you were a top tennis player. I say to you look out. My relative Hone is over there keeping an eye on you. When the All Blacks turn out to play—who knows we might win. So greetings to you collectively throughout our House 
.] 
Madam Assistant Speaker thank you for your indulgence. Kia ora tatou. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Assistant Speaker. Tena tatou katoa e te Whare. I am sorry but I find no humour in having to speak to this bill. This New Zealand First bill which is promoted by Pita Paraone and is denounced as being anti-Maori by Maori from throughout the country plans to end the careers of some of our best Maori judges of the Maori Land Court the High Court and the Waitangi Tribunal and to stop them from serving their own people. 
This bill is exactly the same as that other anti-Maori bill put forward by New Zealand First represented at the Justice and Electoral Committee by Pita Paraone voted for by all of Labour’s Maori MPs including Parekura Horomia Nanaia Mahuta Mahara Okeroa Mita Ririnui Dover Samuels Dave Hereora and Shane Jones and denounced as being anti-Maori by Maori from throughout the country. That bill was called the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill and it proposed taking the Treaty of Waitangi out of all New Zealand legislation. Thankfully the rest of the House voted with the Maori Party at the second reading and threw the bill out but not before all of Labour’s Maori MPs had actually voted to delete the Treaty of Waitangi from all New Zealand legislation. And vote for it they did. It was not just a couple of them but the whole lot of them: Parekura Horomia Nanaia Mahuta Mahara Okeroa Mita Ririnui Dover Samuels Dave Hereora and Shane Jones. 
In fact so horrified was Angeline Greensill the Maori Party candidate for Hauraki-Waikato that she rang me to ask whether I was sure about that. She asked me to confirm that every one of Labour’s Maori MPs including Parekura Horomia Nanaia Mahuta Mahara Okeroa Mita Ririnui Dover Samuels Dave Hereora and Shane Jones actually did something as dumb as to vote to delete the Treaty of Waitangi from all New Zealand legislation. Being a fully paid-up member of the Maori Party I had no option but to tell her the truth: that in fact yes they had—all of Labour’s Maori MPs had voted to delete the Treaty of Waitangi from all legislation. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. On the matter that was raised clearly on the first reading of the bill Labour members voted for it to be sent to the select committee. But if the member wants to establish the facts in the House and go through the  
Hansard 
 at that time he will find the bill was sent to the select committee and on the second reading it was voted against by Maori members in the Labour Government—in fact by the Labour Government. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I appreciate the point but you are making a debating point. 
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. There must be some degree of relevance in what the member is saying. He is debating a bill that has long gone. Can he at least get to the point—that is if he knows what the point of this bill is? So far he has indicated a total absence of relevance to this bill. Could he be relevant? Madam Assistant Speaker it is your responsibility to require him to be relevant. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Thank you. I do not need to be reminded of my responsibility. Yes I ask the member to confine his comments to this particular bill. He was taking off on to past legislation. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: This bill the Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill is the same in many ways as the earlier bill I have referred to. This bill has also been put forward by New Zealand First. This bill was also represented at the Justice and Electoral Committee by Pita Paraone. This bill was also supported by all of Labour’s Maori MPs including Parekura Horomia Nanaia Mahuta Mahara Okeroa Mita Ririnui Dover Samuels Dave Hereora and Shane Jones. This bill has also been denounced as being anti-Maori by Maori from throughout the country. I am happy to say for all of those reasons and more the Maori Party will not be supporting this bill. 
The Maori Party will not be supporting this anti-Maori bill put forward by New Zealand First represented at the select committee by Pita Paraone supported by all of Labour’s Maori MPs including Parekura Horomia Nanaia Mahuta Mahara Okeroa Mita Ririnui Dover Samuels Dave Hereora and Shane Jones and denounced as being anti-Maori by Maori from throughout the country because we know as does the select committee that sitting on both the Maori Land Court and the Waitangi Tribunal requires people to have an understanding of tribal structure Maori land history custom and tradition. Given that 80 percent of those people are likely to be Maori we know that this bill would effectively dump all of those Maori who had dedicated their lives to law school court work and tribunal work before taking up an appointment to either the Maori Land Court or the Waitangi Tribunal and would dismiss 95 percent of the greatest legal minds within Maoridom. How dumb is that? How mind-numbingly nonsensically foolishly downright dumb is that? 
Another reason the Maori Party will not be supporting this anti-Maori bill put forward by New Zealand First represented at the select committee by Pita Paraone supported by all of Labour’s Maori MPs including Parekura Horomia Nanaia Mahuta Mahara Okeroa Mita Ririnui Dover Samuels Dave Hereora and Shane Jones and denounced as being anti-Maori by Maori from all around the country is that it continues the assault against some of our top jurists. People like Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias Maori Land Court Judge Caren Fox and Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court Joe Williams have all been dragged into the political spotlight and attacked by overzealous and intellectually challenged Ministers of the Crown who want to impose their prejudices on the judiciary. There is probably not another party that wants to change the appointment process for judges in Aotearoa as much as the Maori Party does but even we recognise the importance of keeping the judiciary separate from politicians who come and go at the whim of the electorate. 
Another reason the Maori Party will not be supporting this anti-Maori bill put forward by New Zealand First represented at the select committee by Pita Paraone supported by all of Labour’s Maori MPs including Parekura Horomia Nanaia Mahuta Mahara Okeroa Mita Ririnui Dover Samuels Dave Hereora and Shane Jones and denounced as being anti-Maori by Maori from throughout the country is that it plans to muzzle the voices of judges who demonstrate every day high levels of judicial competence and knowledge of Maori land matters and to replace them with retired judges who already have heaps on their plate. I was happy to be the Maori Party representative on the select committee that considered this bill and I was equally happy to hear the recommendation of the select committee that there was no inherent conflict of interest and that therefore this bill could be thrown out on the same scrap heap as the last one. 
Finally let me ask this most obvious of questions—the question on the lips of Maori people all around the country. If it is a conflict of interest that Pita Paraone Parekura Horomia Nanaia Mahuta Mahara Okeroa Mita Ririnui Dover Samuels Dave Hereora and Shane Jones are really concerned about then what about the conflict of interest that arises from the thieving buggers who actually stole our land being the same critters who then set up the Waitangi Tribunal to decide the case pick who the judges will be decide what can be returned and what will not be returned pick who can speak for the poor bloody victims and then say how much the victims will have to pay to get their own land back? That is a conflict of interest I say to Mr Paraone if the member wants to talk about a conflict of interest. Well that is what we call a conflict of interest I say to Mr Paraone. That is the real deal that no one here seems to want to talk about. 
I ask Mr Horomia why the thieves who stole his tupuna’s land should also get to pick the judges for the court case. How about that for a conflict of interest? And I ask Ms Mahuta why the thieves who stole her tupuna’s land should also get to say which lands she can have back. How is that for a conflict of interest? Why should the thieves who stole Mr Okeroa’s tupuna’s land get to say who his negotiators can be? How is that for a conflict of interest? I ask all of the rest of the Maori MPs in Labour how they dare to support legislation that would delete the Treaty and deny Maori the right to sit on our own land courts. 
This bill which is supported by Pita Paraone Parekura Horomia Nanaia Mahuta Mahara Okeroa Mita Ririnui Dover Samuels Dave Hereora and Shane Jones in spite of overwhelming opposition from Maori right around the country and which is intended to strip the Waitangi Tribunal and the Maori Land Court of some of the best legal minds in Maoridom is nothing but a pathetic attempt to deny Maori equal access to all levels of the judiciary. The Maori Party stands proudly alongside the rest of Maoridom in denouncing this anti-Maori bill and we call on this House to consign it to the same trash bin as the last piece of legislative prejudice put forward by New Zealand First. Tena koutou katoa. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I congratulate my colleague Hone Harawira on his contribution to this debate because I agree with virtually everything he said. I will talk about the Green Party view on this bill which is very similar although it will not be put in such an elegant or passionate way I think. 
It interests me a great deal that New Zealand First has a tendency to put forward into the ballot bills that concern the Treaty of Waitangi in various ways. In fact as far as I can remember—and I have been here for a wee while now—there has been only one New Zealand First bill pulled from the ballot that did not concern the Treaty. A number of them have concerned the Treaty and all of those bills have been focused on undermining the role of the Treaty in legislation and in society. That raises a great deal of concern. It means that when the Greens approach legislation like this Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill from New Zealand First given that it concerns the Treaty as well we do so with a great deal of suspicion that the purpose of this legislation is about undermining the Treaty about eliminating it from the law books and from the community’s view and in some way about taking an anti-Maori approach. 
It is very sad that a party that has a number of Maori MPs—which it certainly did in the last Parliament—is happy to promote such legislation to the House and that its Maori MPs are then encouraged or required to promote that legislation through the House as well. I have some sympathy for the members who are in that position because I think that it puts them in an inherent conflict of interest which is just the situation that they expect the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court and the chairperson of the Waitangi Tribunal to be in. 
Getting to the bill itself as far as I can tell from my work on the Justice and Electoral Committee there is no requirement that the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court also be the chairperson of the tribunal. The law simply allows for that to happen recognising that there is still a shortage of people with the kind of expertise needed and it makes sure that regardless of other circumstances it is possible to have the most highly skilled person for both those jobs doing both those jobs. Given that it is not a mandatory requirement there really is no need for legislation that takes that opportunity away because it simply undermines the ability of Maori to take up these positions and fulfil these seats of power. 
One of the issues raised by the select committee was that the pool of people available for positions like this in a number of positions like this is still very small. That is quite true. That is because there have been decades—in fact a century and a bit—of under-representation of Maori in the higher reaches of education and there continues to be a lack of Maori getting the kind of education and experience that is needed to do this kind of work. One might reflect for example on the universities that are currently going through the process of using funding formula issues to restrict access to some of the first-year arts and Maori courses which again will have a disproportionate effect on Maori. It will mean that they will have much greater difficulty in accessing tertiary education at the degree and post-degree level so that they are then able to have the kind of education the kinds of qualifications they need to get the work experience they need to do this kind of work. 
There is a systemic issue with education that prevents Maori from getting the kind of education needed so that we can grow the pool of people who are able to do this work. Having said that we are doing a little bit better. I have always been enormously amazed at the talent skill and knowledge of the people whom I went to law school with for example. We have some fantastic examples of those people doing amazing work in their community and that pool is growing slowly. But the systemic barriers to it continue to exist and this legislation is simply another part of that systemic barrier. This provides a barrier at the top end. Where the universities are putting in barriers at the bottom end New Zealand First wants to put barriers at the top end again to prevent Maori from taking up these positions of considerable responsibility and authority. Again this is a deeply anti-Maori measure that is promoted by a party with Maori MPs who should know better. 
One of the other issues raised in the select committee was that resources are necessary to ensure that a person who is doing both jobs is able to do both jobs well and effectively. That is always an issue for Maori organisations of any description—that there are simply not the resources available. The Greens are certainly of the view that the Waitangi Tribunal is insufficiently resourced to carry out the work that it is trying to do. The tribunal is often in quite a conflicted position because it acts as an arbiter or an assessor of the wrongs that were committed against Maori by the State in various forms over many years yet it does not have the full resources it needs to do that work as well as it could. It does a fantastic job with the resources it has but it could do much better with more and it is still pulled into a lot of the Government policies. For example Michael Cullen the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations said in the select committee today how pleased he was to see the Waitangi Tribunal the Office of Treaty Settlements and the Crown Forestry Rental Trust working together around Government policy. But of course that raises real questions about the role of the tribunal as an independent arbiter of the wrongs that were committed against Maori when working with the Government on a policy that seeks to restrict their compensation if you like to less than 1 percent of the value of the properties they lost. 
So there is still a real issue around the resourcing of the tribunal and the Maori Land Court to make sure that they can do their work well. I am pleased that the select committee referred to that in its report so that it could be brought to the attention of the House and so that the whole concept and issue of resources for these organisations and for the people who work there can be raised continually for people’s purview. 
Mr Harawira raised an interesting question around the role of Labour in supporting this legislation. I know that Labour has supported a number of New Zealand First members’ bills—including for example the foetal criminal responsibility bill which was promoted by Ron Mark and other legislation like the members’ bills promoted by New Zealand First that have called for the elimination of references to the Treaty of Waitangi from legislation. I do think this is an ethical issue for the public to be aware of. Labour and New Zealand First have a political agreement that Labour will support the first readings of all of New Zealand First’s members’ bills going to a select committee whether or not individual Labour members agree with them. This is a big issue especially when members’ bills generally involve conscience issues or issues that are of particular concern to individual members. At times other members of other parties will want to make a personal statement or a personal stand on those issues and I think they should be entitled to do so. 
So a political agreement between these two parties—Labour and New Zealand First—prevents individual Labour members from being able to express their real view. They have to vote for and have their name recorded in favour of legislation that they are personally opposed to. I have great faith that Labour’s Maori members oppose this legislation as I am sure they did when it came to the New Zealand First bill to eliminate references to the Treaty from legislation. I am sure that many Labour members were also opposed to Ron Mark’s foetal criminal responsibility bill. How ethical is it for MPs to be required to vote against their conscience and their personal views on such serious matters and on personal matters in a context where members would ordinarily have the opportunity to express their own views on members’ bills? I think it is an unfortunate state of affairs that Labour has got itself into with that political agreement. I think it is highly unethical. 
The Green Party has done very well with its members’ bills without having such an agreement. In fact we are the only party to have had members’ bills passed into law. Currently three pieces of legislation are fully Green Party Acts and we will add another two Acts in the next few months. We will have achieved five Acts not because of an unethical deal that was done with another party but because we have done the work and put up the bills that get the legislature’s support. I think that is a much more ethical position than that proposed by New Zealand First and Labour. Thank you. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 Given the contribution of the MP for Te Tai Tokerau—soon to be replaced—Hone Harawira I was not prepared to give him the charity of my silence on a number of issues that were raised in the House in relation to positions taken by Labour Maori Government MPs. In fact although the MP for Te Tai Tokerau may be happy to mislead the House—and people listening to the debate could very easily be misled by that contribution—it really is important to set the record straight. Let us look at the issue of the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill which was introduced by New Zealand First. Yes that bill was supported through the first reading stage to be sent to a select committee. The clear understanding given by Labour Maori MPs at the time was that although that is a view held strongly amongst New Zealand First we were not prepared to stifle any debate on the Treaty of Waitangi at any point because it is a debate that every New Zealander has an interest in. That is why the select committee process becomes so important. 
I now move on to the Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill. For any person listening to a considered debate on issues in this House if one were listening to the contribution of the MP for Te Tai Tokerau on this bill—and again sending it to select committee can be a positive thing because the submission process in itself starts to inform this House through its select committee members about the public view on issues that are hotly contested across all sectors of this House—it would be wrong to think that Labour Maori MPs do not support issues regarding Maori. In fact it was the Labour Government that established the Waitangi Tribunal. It was the Labour Government that allowed retrospective claims to the tribunal and it was the Labour Government that continues to advance Treaty settlements in this House. In fact if people were to listen to the considered debate on just how Labour Maori MPs and this Government advance and support Maori development they would be very interested and concerned to hear that many of the Maori Party MPs have not voted for Treaty settlement legislation—and that is a fact. So the charity of my silence would be misplaced on this particular issue because this House is informed on good political debate. 
The Green Party member made the point that although understandings apply across the House much of the Green Party legislation that has gone through has done so with the support of this Government on similar understandings of a different nature. But we cannot take the moral high ground too much in terms of the nature of the relationships that exist in this House. 
I come back to this bill because it is an important issue that was well considered by the Justice and Electoral Committee. I think the most cogent part of its consideration was expressed on page 3 of its report 
 
 which brings the crux of the matter into a nice sharp crisp statement. That is the reason why we will not be supporting this bill in its third reading. The report states: “It is not unusual for Judges to be able to sit in more than one jurisdiction: for example High Court judges sit on the Court of Appeal District Court judges and Maori Land Court judges may serve in the Environment Court. There is no suggestion that any inherent conflict of interests arises in such situations and we see no reason for considering the situation of Maori Land Court judges and serving High Court judges to be any different. We were forwarded advice issued by the Crown Law Office in 2001 which supports this conclusion.” I think that if anyone wants to get to the nub of the matter and understand the full consideration of the select committee that really is a very clear statement and it is well put within the context of this report. I am happy we have had the debate and I inform the House that Labour Government members will not support this bill. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 National will not be supporting the Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill any further either. I want to put the argument in this manner—and I ask my elder— 
Pita Paraone 
: What’s he talking about? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: The member is not my elder? That is fair enough. That is fine. I was just trying to be a bit charitable for once in my life. 
Pita Paraone 
: It’s a surprise. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Yes it did surprise a few people but let us revert to how we usually act. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Please don’t. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: If it were so important to have this bill why was it not part of the coalition negotiations? If this bill and the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill were so important then why did New Zealand First not put them up as cornerstone policies going into a coalition deal with the present Government? I can only suggest and surmise that this measure was not that important a deal to New Zealand First. This bill is New Zealand First’s bread butter and breakfast. It is what it trots out every election time. It is what it trots out to get a bit of sympathy from a certain quarter. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: The Don Brash quarter? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: It is funny that that “ginga” says that— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: The member will use correct names please. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: —OK Mr Darren Hughes—because if it was a “Don Brash” view then why the hell did the Labour Party vote for it to go to the Justice and Electoral Committee? 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: You worshipped Don Brash. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Is it all right for the member to sit in the back row and snipe and say with all of his 22 years of experience that it is a Don Brash thing to do but Labour will vote for it anyway just to keep New Zealand First happy? Is that the principled way to deal with the issues? 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: You were a Brash man. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I am a Brash man? Well I would rather be a Brash man than a Clark lady. The unfortunate thing is— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Anything for a job eh Tau! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Well let us talk about that shall we? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I wonder whether we could talk about the— 
Hon TAU HENARE 
:  Oh no Madam Speaker. If it is all right for him to snipe it is all right for me to respond in kind. If you are going to rule—[ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I do not mind your rulings; your rulings are fantastic. However if I am told to go back to the bill then surely to goodness the member on the other side of the House should be told to zip it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I thank the Hon Tau Henare. Interjections should be short pithy and not be a barrage. They were getting close to being continuous. I wonder whether we all could go back to the bill. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: It is no wonder this bill is not being supported by anybody in the House apart from my colleagues from New Zealand First. As I said earlier that is their stock in trade. It is just outrageous that those members could accuse the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court of having a conflict of interest because of that position and because he also acts as chairperson of the Waitangi Tribunal. I suppose I have a conflict of interest because I was the Minister who appointed the current Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court. If for example the judge was to hear a case about say Ngati Hine and then in his position as chairperson of the tribunal was to hear a case on a similar issue concerning Ngati Hine I am sure—I am under no illusion—that the integrity of the judge would require him to stand aside. So there would be no conflict of interest. 
I ask where this bill comes from. Has there been a conflict of interest? No there has not. Has there ever been a conflict of interest between the two positions? No there has not. This bill is a make-up measure to pander to a certain section of our society and that happens only in an election year. It happens only when the 5 percent is rather a distant hurdle to get over. That is all it is about. Umpteen dozen people turned up to the Maori Affairs Committee—not ordinary Joe Bloggs on the street but well-informed professional people—and gave evidence that there is no and can be no conflict of interest. 
If there were a glaring conflict of interest then a judge would step aside. In fact in other jurisdictions judges of the High Court have sat as a judge on one of the other courts. For example a High Court judge sometimes sits in the Court of Appeal on the criminal appeal or civil appeal divisions; and a District Court judge sometimes serves on other courts like the Environment Court. If there were a possibility of a conflict of interest in those circumstances we can basically guarantee that the judge would stand aside and somebody else would take over. So do we have to be so prescriptive or should we leave it to people’s good judgment—especially these people? They are the very people whom the public rely on to get things right. We may disagree with some of their decisions but essentially those people are held in high esteem and nine times out of 10 get things right. They have the best interests of the community at heart. That is why National will not support the bill any further. 
I will take a couple of minutes to suggest that if the argument is about supporting a bill to the select committee then why not have a system whereby every bill is supported to the select committee? The Hon Dover Samuels said he would support the bill to the select committee to see whether it had merit. If that were the case why do the Labour Party the National Party New Zealand First and everybody else not support every bill to the select committee? 
Hon Mahara Okeroa 
: No merit. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: We do not know that; not until a bill comes out of the select committee. So that is a little point I want to make. We should not use the decision to send or not send a bill to the select committee as an excuse to dump that bill. Nobody believes that. For goodness’ sake we are all grown-ups. We know that the sending of bills to select committees is politics horse-trading and all that sort of thing. But if we are serious about it then let us think very carefully about sending all bills to the select committee. I do not think we would get into that because the system would be far too cumbersome but there we are. 
National will not support the bill. It has no merit and thankfully most of Parliament will vote “no”. 
Hon MAHARA OKEROA (Minister of State) 
: 
 I came into the Chamber earlier because I was looking forward to hearing what the member for Te Tai Tokerau had to say. I was looking forward to that with great anticipation but unfortunately I was disappointed once more. I was absolutely disappointed. That member has been in the House for almost one term. If he had not said “Okeroa Ririnui” and so on and so forth there would have been nothing in his speech at all. 
The other point I want to pick up on as an introduction to what I need to say about the Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill is the extraordinary difficulty I have in accepting the comment that the sponsor of this bill could actually be described as promoting something that is anti-Maori. I find that to be totally unacceptable in the sense that the sponsor of this bill Mr Pita Paraone is descended from one of the principal and highly respected chiefs of his people and who had demonstrated everything about being very pro-Maori as opposed to being anti-Maori. I need to say that my knowledge of the sponsor of this bill is that he has had the courage to put up this member’s bill and I find no reason to then call him anti-Maori. 
I know the sponsor quite well and I would say that all his life he has done everything to assist Maori and not only that but he has been acknowledged as having done so. I refer to the honour that was awarded to him in respect of his services to Maori people. I want to put that in its proper context for people who are listening to the debate. If Mr Paraone were anti-Maori then certainly he would not have been the recipient of an honour that reflected both his service to the community and to his people. The only anti-Maori flavour that I can conjure up and that all Maori in New Zealand should be aware of is the appalling record of the Maori Party in not supporting Treaty settlements. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Hon MAHARA OKEROA 
: I wish to continue on the theme I was articulating prior to the dinner break. Elements of the Maori Party attacked Ngati Porou for their foreshore and seabed heads of agreement calling it a sham. In doing so Maori Party members rode roughshod over the right of iwi to make their own decisions an ideal the Maori Party purports to support. Let me quote a leader of Ngati Porou by the name of Api Mahuika: “I would warn Maori people to think again before voting in that”—Maori Party—“direction. If they are the Maori Party they should actually be saying to Ngati Porou ‘congratulations for making … a precedent others can follow’.” I find that—not the comments by Api Mahuika but rather what occasioned those comments—definitely anti-Maori anti-whanau anti-hapu and anti-iwi. In a sense it is completely anti-Aotearoa. 
We need to put this in context so that those who listened to the speech made by Hone Harawira are able to appreciate another point of view. That is really critical because having weighed the evidence and considered the debate the Labour Party recommends that this bill not be passed. We consider that there is no inherent conflict of interest in sitting judges of the High Court and the Maori Land Court serving on the Waitangi Tribunal or in the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court acting as the chairperson of the Waitangi Tribunal. We note that this view is supported by all the evidence and advice that was reviewed during the considerations. We consider further that the amendments proposed could severely limit the ability of the Waitangi Tribunal to draw on the expertise of those best qualified to act as members and to provide recommendations on matters of national importance. 
I conclude after some consideration that the true value of Hone Harawira’s speech was only in his indelible printing on the consciousness of all those people watching the debate that Maori Labour MPs are anti-Maori. But they are not because each and every one of those MPs has a huge knowledge and in-depth understanding of what marae and wharenui are about. On both marae and wharenui people have the ability to articulate discuss and debate differences of opinion. I do not see any clear difference between that situation and our allowing this bill to go before a select committee following a democratic process that allows people the right not only of participation but of debate. To call Maori Labour MPs anti-Maori for following a tikanga of marae is totally and utterly unacceptable and misplaced. 
Labour does not support this bill but it is not because people are not allowed to articulate difference. 
No reira e te hoa e Pita anei te whakaputa mai i tenei tangata ki a koutou ki te wero e werohia nei e to hoa a kua ki a au kua he rawa kua kotiti kua rere ke hoki nga ahuatanga o ana nei korero kua riro mai i runga i te pokohiwi ehara i a matou anake ki a tatou katoa. No reira tena koutou tena koutou mauri ora ki a tatou katoa. 
[ 
So to you Pita fellow colleague and to you collectively in respect of the challenge made by a colleague of yours I say that aspects of his speech are totally wrong misguided and changed as well. Such talk should not be shouldered by one individual and by us but by all of us collectively. So greetings to you greetings to you. May the force of good life be upon us all 
.] 
Hon SHANE JONES (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 Kia ora ano tatou e te whanau. This bill was brought forward as an essential part of modern social democracy by my whanaunga Pita Paraone a high-born son—unlike his critic Hone Harawira—of Ngati Hine. 
Na reira e puare ana tenei Whare ki a koe e Pita maua mai i enei whakaaro hei korerotanga hei whawha hei hamahama ma tatou. Koia tenei te tikanga o tenei Whare. E puare ana ki te iti me te rahi ahakoa pehea te kawa te kakara o tena take. 
[ 
This House therefore is open to you Pita to bring these viewpoints here for us to debate to get a feel about them and to hammer out. That is the custom of this House. It is open to the minority and majority regardless of how distasteful or how pleasant that issue may be 
.] 
This House is the highest court in the land. It is a place where issues of this nature ought to be debated and made available for all manner of contributions. As I said in our Maori language Pita Paraone has brought forward a perspective that will not carry the majority this evening but he is entitled as a key contributor to this House to do so. Any suggestion from the member for Te Tai Tokerau that this bill is anti-Maori anti-democratic or inversely related to the advancement of our nation goes to show that the only creatures that enjoyed the contribution à la Hone Harawira this evening were the bug-eyed goldfish going round their bowls. They found a friend in Hone Harawira who spouted circuitous mindless rhetoric. He said that the future of the Waitangi Tribunal the composition of the tribunal and the confidence in the tribunal of the citizenry ought not to be debated here. Between the approaches of Pita Paraone and Hone Harawira Maori voters up and down the country have two clear opportunities: one is to embrace a petty very stunted negative and divisive view; the other is to embrace an open vigorous not necessarily consensus-oriented but valuable contribution to this House. 
I support much of what Mahara Okeroa had to say. Enough of Hone Harawira; the voters of the north will pass that verdict. In fact today I met with Te Roroa from Waimamaku. They are great supporters of what is happening in the area of the Treaty. They fear that the tide is going out so fast that my whanaunga is getting caught on a pipi bed. The tide is moving against him and is taking a new waka with the friends Ropu Reipa and Aotearoa Tuatahi in it into great fishing grounds. That waka is not stranded surrounded by stunted pipis scorched mussels and desiccated fish which represent the essence of Hone Harawira’s contribution. Fortunately the proud families of Te Aupouri and the proud families of West Auckland—although Hone Harawira’s supporters would probably fit in the telephone box very near John Tamihere’s house—will not agree with one single word of the unwanted and superfluous remarks that he made this evening. 
The reality is that we must have confidence in our jurists and our judicial officers. The odd possibly deluded complainant may have gone to Pita Paraone out there at Bucklands Beach—that hive of Maori activism—to alert him to the concern that some of our Maori judges on the Maori Land Court may lack the ability to be dispassionate and fair. In my experience many of the Maori Land Court judges who also sit on the Waitangi Tribunal are just as fierce in their criticism of Maori contributions as their Pakeha colleagues are. At the moment those judges can sit on the Environment Court and they can sit on the tribunal. 
Let us back our judiciary. Let us not be like Hone Harawira who attacked that very sensible judge from Ngati Kahungunu country. Hone Harawira says that inveterate taggers—junior voters no doubt of the Maori Party—should be allowed to escape and carry on their mindless destructiveness without having to face the consequences of their actions. We will never hear that from Pita Paraone. He would say of that judge in contrast to my whanaunga Hone Harawira that he should be put on the honours list—not called a teke. 
Therein lies the contrast between the two approaches. Of course on our side we take elements from both approaches. We take the tradition-bound approach that Pita Paraone is bringing to the table of ta te rangatira kai he korero—which basically means that debate and oratory are a chiefly pursuit—and we take the energy that occasionally is seen in this House and that is largely anarchic when it is in Hone Harawira’s hands and bind them together so that we have a balanced contribution in relation to the Treaty debate. 
The concerns that Pita Paraone has lie with whether a potential conflict of interest is manageable. No less a powerful and judicious person than Peter Salmon has pointed out that it is provided that it is declared and provided that there is a process to manage it. I have no doubt that in the event that a potential conflict of interest is so serious as to have a negative impact on the Crown on the iwi or on other stakeholders there are more than enough judges to fill the role. Lord knows we on this side of the House have been out on a harvesting exercise and have boosted the number of Maori Land Court judges. I say to Pita Paraone that when they are appointed they enjoy a rare privilege which unfortunately we do not enjoy: they do not stand for office. However many iwi have promoted the notion that Maori Land Court judges should have to go and gain their credentials from iwi but for fear that Hone’s rhetoric might infect iwi decision-making I hope that day never comes. 
This bill is an example of a large party and its key colleague a minority party—Aotearoa Tuatahi—being able to agree on how an issue should be debated. There is absolutely nothing wrong with people going to a select committee to give their differences of opinion the select committee staff sieving them the select committee members debating them and when the measure comes back to this House the power of democracy having its way. That does not mean that the man ought not to have been allowed to bring that perspective here. He should be congratulated on it. He is actually adding to the richness of our parliamentary tradition whereas unfortunately Hone Harawira is adding further fuel to his new name “Kaitaia Fire” because what comes out of the mouth is hot and incandescent but it generates a lot of heat and precious little light. Kia ora tatou katoa. 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 Firstly I acknowledge the member in charge of the bill Pita Paraone. It is not often that a member is able to have his bill pulled from the ballot in this way. The other fact is that Pita Paraone is Maori and it is not often that we see bills coming through from Maori. I acknowledge him in relation to those two matters. I also reaffirm the undertaking given by Labour to support the passage of the bill through to the Justice and Electoral Committee as that support was part of the confidence and supply agreement with New Zealand First. 
I take this opportunity to respond to an issue raised prior to the dinner break. I think it is important that we have the option of referring bills to select committees—particularly for those of us who are not involved with the particular select committee—because it gives us more information. The select committee process has given us the opportunity to arrive at an informed decision on this bill so I do think it is important. It has given that opportunity to those of us who are not associated with that select committee. 
I read in the report back that the bill “proposes to amend the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 to remove the ability of serving Judges of the High Court or the Maori Land Court (including the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court) to serve as members of the Waitangi Tribunal. Instead it provides that retired Judges of the High Court or Maori Land Court (including retired Chief Judges of the Maori Land Court) be members of the Waitangi Tribunal; and that a member who is either a retired Judge of the High Court or retired Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court should preside as Chairperson of the Tribunal.” 
The bill cites an inherent conflict of interest as to the reasons for the proposed amendments. We do not support that view. We do not consider that there is an inherent conflict with sitting judges of the High Court or the Maori Land Court serving on the tribunal or with the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court acting as chairperson of the Waitangi Tribunal. It has worked I think well in the past and we are not experiencing any major problems. 
The Waitangi Tribunal as we know is charged with making recommendations to the Government on claims brought by Maori relating to actions or omissions of the Crown that may breach the principles of the Treaty and the Maori Land Court makes decisions relating to ownership and administration of Maori land in accordance with Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. I hold the very strong view that consideration should be given to the requirement for the Maori Land Court and Waitangi Tribunal members to have similar qualities—that is the understanding of tribal structures and of the Maori land history customs and traditions. They are competencies that are relevant for the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court and chairperson of the Waitangi Tribunal—especially considering that the pool of judges who meet those criteria is quite limited. So there may be practical difficulties for a person holding both positions if he or she does not have adequate resources or the ability to delegate that responsibility. On that point I note that the tribunal’s chairperson currently has the power to delegate work to an appointed deputy. I consider that this option at the very least partially addresses the concerns about workload. 
I also take on board the concern raised by the member that there are other people in New Zealand who have the knowledge or have even greater knowledge than a Maori Land Court judge on matters relating to issues of Maori and in doing so I note that the role should be made available to others and not be limited to the judiciary. However we consider that the amendments proposed could severely limit the ability of the Waitangi Tribunal to draw on the expertise of those best qualified to act as members. Currently there are not enough judges around with the high level of understanding of Maori grievances and tribal systems that they need in order to serve just as members of the tribunal. 
On occasions judges disclose conflicts that allow parties to request an alternative presiding officer or ask a member to withdraw or file a memorandum which I think is perfectly legitimate. A more common example of conflict of interest for presiding officers is where they may have acted as counsel to one or other of the parties involved at some earlier stage of their careers. In that instance again the matter is usually resolved in the same way by the court proceedings. 
Finally I say again that in our view there is no inherent conflict with sitting judges of the High Court or Maori Land Court serving on the Waitangi Tribunal or with the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court acting as a chairperson of the tribunal. It has worked well in the past as I said without major problems. We consider that the amendments proposed could severely limit the ability of the Waitangi Tribunal to draw on the expertise of those best qualified to act as members and there are not enough judges with the high level of understanding of Maori grievances and tribal systems that is needed for them to serve as members of the Waitangi Tribunal. 
In finishing I again acknowledge the member in charge of the bill. I think it is important that we as members of this Parliament have the opportunity to have this debate in order to be able to critique the report from the select committee so that members can reaffirm their position as to which way to vote on this matter. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I would like to congratulate Mr Dave Hereora on his speech and thank him for his kind remarks as well. He at least looked at the Treaty of Waitangi Act read the report gave consideration to it and gave some thought to what he had to say. That is unlike the member of the Maori Party whom I doubt ever really read the report or the Treaty of Waitangi Act. I especially doubt whether that member has ever looked at section 4 because in his entire speech he seemed to be absolutely ignorant of the issues that are before the House tonight. I would also like to thank all other members who took part in this debate. New Zealand First is disappointed that this matter is clearly not going any further but its members appreciate the opportunity for the bill to have been sent to the select committee and for the people of New Zealand to give consideration to the issue raised by New Zealand First. 
I would like to make some points on the bill that seem to have escaped the attention of most members of the House. Currently section 4(2) of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 which is the section in question states: “The Tribunal shall consist of—(a) a Judge or retired Judge of the High Court”. Currently the Waitangi Tribunal can consist of a judge or retired judge of the High Court not only the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court. Section 4(2) states further “or the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court.” The Act already envisages that the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court may not be the only possibility for chairperson of the Waitangi Tribunal. That possibility is already contained in the Act which goes on to state “and the Judge is both a member of the Tribunal and its Chairperson and is appointed by the Governor-General…” etc. So currently when we talk about expertise and all those wonderful things the person who can be the chairperson need not be a Maori person and need not be the Maori Land Court judge. That is already provided for in the Act and that is something we should bear in mind. 
Subsection (b) which is not part of this bill states that the tribunal shall also consist of “Not less than 2 other members and not more than 16 other members …”. New Zealand First members made the point when we presented the bill to the House that the Act should be amended so that the chairperson should be either a retired judge of the High Court—I emphasise that he should be a retired judge of the High Court and that is already provided for in the current Act—or a retired Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court. The only change that we are bringing into this legislation is that the person who is a judge of the Maori Land Court should be someone who is a retired Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court. It is as simple as that yet for one reason or another the bill has been totally confused by so many members of this House. 
I have heard speeches given tonight saying that if we remove the Maori Land Court judge and if we put in a retired Chief Maori Land Court Judge as this bill states we will lose expertise. Well that must be nonsense because a retired Chief Maori Land Court Judge is likely to know a lot more than a recently appointed Chief Maori Land Court Judge. That is the first point. 
The second point of course is that irrespective of who the judge or chairperson might be we have up to 16 other possible members of the tribunal. In terms of the very way in which they are appointed subsection (2)(a) of that section states: “In considering the suitability of persons for appointment to the Tribunal the Minister of Maori Affairs—(a) Shall have regard to the partnership between the 2 parties of the Treaty; and (b) Shall have regard not only to a person’s personal attributes but also to a person’s knowledge of and experience in the different aspects of matters likely to come before the Tribunal.” So every other member of the Waitangi Tribunal has to have that expertise. 
So all these speeches I have been hearing in the last few days that have said there will be a lack of expertise are absolute nonsense. It suggests that the members who made those speeches have not actually read the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 and grasped the provisions of section 4(2)(a). Every other member of the tribunal must have that expertise. There would be no question of expertise being lost if the person were a retired High Court judge because the only other person would be the retired Maori Land Court judge. 
New Zealand First is saying that when one has a current serving judge whether it is of the High Court or the Maori Land Court there is inevitably a concern that someone is currently in the business of dealing with these lands and suchlike and that “justice is not being seen to be done”. For some reason or another there is always a concern especially when we have a disgruntled person before the tribunal that someone is likely to say that a person is currently a Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court and that he is looking after his mates and his family. Well that is not possible under the proposal that is set out by New Zealand First to have a retired High Court judge which is already provided for in the existing law or a retired Maori Land Court judge. That is the only difference: a retired Maori Land Court judge is what we say should apply assisted by two to 16 others. Many of the arguments I have heard suggest that members have not grasped the bill in any way at all. 
Of course even Mr Finlayson when he was speaking in this House on 21 May—and his speech appears in  
Hansard  
at page 16213—made the point quite correctly that what we have before us is a commission of inquiry. The Waitangi Tribunal is not a court. It does not make binding decisions; it is merely a commission of inquiry that gathers information and can then make a recommendation. Of course in doing so it must have expertise in the areas concerned and we are all in agreement with that. Mr Finlayson made a rather specious comment in his speech as to whether the person should be an accountant or a teacher. Obviously he has not read the bill very well because we have made it clear that the person has to be a retired High Court judge as is currently the case or a retired Maori Land Court judge. As far as the second point that Mr Finlayson and other members have raised is concerned—and they have quite properly raised this point because there was reference to the conflict of interest that might arise—Mr Finlayson in his speech at page 16213 agrees that there can be a potential conflict of interest. I am concentrating on this speech because it has been made by a lawyer and he should have thought these comments through clearly. 
When we talk about conflicts of interest and current judicial officers being involved in the Waitangi Tribunal members have said that no one has ever complained about the current holders of the positions. Well I have a letter here in front of me from a distinguished person. He mentioned that he heard Pita Paraone speaking and said: “I express support for removing judges from the Waitangi Tribunal … and I found that in his area of New Zealand it is not well serviced by the Maori Land Court judges. This is because of the time that has been spent on Waitangi Tribunal hearings so judges often come down to us totally ill prepared having not even read court files till the morning of the hearing. Oh well that’s what they expect in that part of New Zealand.” 
One of the problems with the Maori Land Court judges or even if a High Court judge was the chairperson concerned is that if they are busy doing other Waitangi Tribunal work they have to go back and do their Maori Land Court work. Well they do not even prepare properly for the Maori Land Court work according to this person who has written to New Zealand First. 
So clearly in that respect if we had a retired judge he or she would be able to give his or her whole time to the position rather than be a part-time worker judge or chairperson. We want a full-time person involved in the Waitangi Tribunal. We have the greatest respect for the work it does which is why we want better quality time available for the person who chairs the Waitangi Tribunal. That does not seem to have been accepted by the other parties in this House. We are disappointed that the other parties in this House do not want to see a full-time chairperson of the Waitangi Tribunal. A full-time person would give all the time and devotion to the job that a full-time person can. A part-timer who is involved in things that might create potential conflicts of interest can clearly not do the job as well. New Zealand First wants to see the best possible representative as chairperson on the tribunal. 
As far as some of the other issues are concerned I think I have covered them. Once again I thank all members of the House for the contributions they have made although I thought that the Maori Party was a little bit childish and repetitious and clearly did not understand the situation. Finally I was concerned at the comments made about the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill. If members could have just worked out that the only words being removed were “the principles of” and that the words “Treaty of Waitangi” still stayed then they would have had clarification. Thank you. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 7 
New Zealand First 7. 
Noes 112 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Motion not agreed to.