Finlayson Christopher: Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Finlayson Christopher: Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:644;Page:13976] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I will take a brief call because the National Party has indicated through previous speakers that it will support this bill going to a select committee. As a member of the Maori Affairs Committee I am looking forward to dealing with the issues it raises particularly in relation to Part 3 which deals with the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975.  
But before dealing with the particular provisions I think in fairness to Sir Douglas Graham who was such an outstanding Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations I ought to respond in some detail to the vulgar crude and intemperate attack made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. He has come back from North Korea and of course we are pleased to see him back from North Korea but I think that he has learnt a thing or two from his new friend Kim Jong Il and he is confusing the truth and propaganda.  
When we look at the truth of the record of the National Government between 1992 and 1999 and at the work done by Sir Douglas Graham as the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations we know that for Mr Peters to stand up in this House and insult that work by implication is totally unfair. The record of the National Government between 1992 and 1999 in this area is nothing other than outstanding and that Minister who is now a member of the Labour Government—he ran away from the National Party in the mid-1990s—did not do anything to advance the cause of justice in so far as the historical grievances were concerned.  
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is that why you won all the Maori seats? 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I can understand why he probably has the pip that Sir Douglas Graham was made the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations because I know he made a bid for it when he was the Minister of Maori Affairs. But Jim Bolger with his customary foresight knew he would be no good and he appointed Sir Douglas Graham who was then the Minister of Justice to take the job. So I can understand why that member has got the pip. He was pipped at the post by Sir Douglas Graham. All I can say for New Zealand is thank goodness he was because if he had been the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations then his performance probably would have been as lousy as Mark Burton’s.  
The reality of the matter is that Jim Bolger and Sir Douglas Graham did a great job in the Treaty area and they can be very proud of what they did. For that member the former member of Tauranga to stand up 9 years later and insult that memory is grossly unfair. If he has any decency he will stand up and apologise to Sir Douglas Graham when I have finished my speech.  
It is a great honour to follow Georgina te Heuheu because she was a member of the tribunal from 1986 to 1996 and a very good member of the tribunal she was. She was there and when she talks about issues about the tribunal she talks not only as an extremely diligent member of Parliament but also as a person who made a significant contribution to New Zealand as a member of that tribunal.  
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: So what’s the policy? 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Oh the member asks where the policy is. The policy will be announced in due course. Where is the member’s policy on all sorts of things? The policy will be announced in due course and I am sure that the Maori of New Zealand will be very impressed with it. We will wipe the floor with you when the policy is announced. Let me deal very briefly with— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I know that the member is a very junior member and has just arrived here but he cannot talk about wiping the floor “with you”. That is not a proper parliamentary term. I would ask him to try to collect his thoughts which are pretty chaotic right now and apologise for what he said. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: That is quite right. The last thing I would say is “wipe the floor with you” Madam Assistant Speaker. I regret that because of course what I meant to say was that we will wipe the floor with the former member for Tauranga just as Bob Clarkson will wipe the floor with the former member of Tauranga if Mr Peters decides to stand there again.  
Let us get on to clause 16 which deals with the jurisdiction of the tribunal. This clause is an extremely good amendment and the National Party will support it. Clause 16 amends section 6 of the Treaty of Waitangi Act. It sets out the jurisdiction of the tribunal to consider claims. While the Minister of Foreign Affairs was away in Pyongyang his colleague Mr Woolerton introduced what could only be described as a half-baked member’s bill to try to delete all references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi from section 6. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is outside the Standing Orders and parliamentary rules to seek to relitigate a bill that has been dealt with in the same term of a Parliament as this speaker is wont to do and is trying to do now. I know that he is new to the House and that he is only a junior member and does not know too much about procedure but he cannot do that. I would ask him to come back to the legislation before the House now. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member was making references outside the bill. He should please continue. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I was of course making reference in passing for the benefit of the Minister who has been so busy cuddling up to Kim Jong Il in Pyongyang that I thought it only fair I should tell him what his colleagues have been up to. That bill could only be described as dopey legislation which sought to remove all references to the principles. Maybe if the Minister has time at some point he should read section 6(1) of the Treaty of Waitangi Act and he would see that to remove references to the principles there would render the whole Act meaningless.  
What is proposed is that all the subclauses in section 6 from subclause (4A) through to the end of section 6 be removed and put in the schedule. That is a perfectly sensible amendment and the National Party will support it. That issue really does not need any argument in the select committee.  
The second point—and it has been adverted to by a number of speakers including Dr Sharples—concerns clause 15. It involves increasing the number of members of the tribunal from 16 to 20. The National Party again thinks that is a very sensible proposal.  
But as all the speakers have said it is only part of the story because the tribunal is suffering from not only a lack of numbers of members who can do the job but also a lack of adequate resourcing. Indeed section 4(5) of the Act states that the Ministry of Justice is obligated to “furnish such secretarial recording and other services as may be necessary to enable the Tribunal to exercise its functions and powers.” The reality of the matter is that the legislative framework is there to enable this sort of thing but it has not happened adequately enough over recent years. The tribunal suffers from a lack of resources. In particular it suffers from a lack of qualified historians.  
There is also the need for proper funding for hearings so that as Mrs te Heuheu said hearings can proceed with greater speed than they proceeded for example in the northern South Island tribunal inquiry Wai785. That was a stop-start affair for a number of years. For example in August 2003 for a couple of days the claimants themselves presented their evidence. Then there was a gap for some months before a hearing was held at Omaka Marae from 13 to 17 October when Ngai Tahu presented its evidence in response. Again there was another gap until November of that year when the Crown heard evidence. Then there were final submissions—I know because I was involved in them—early in the following year. Then there was a 3-year gap between the final submissions and the tribunal’s release of the report.  
Maybe the Minister of Foreign Affairs thinks a 3-year gap between the final submissions and the report is acceptable but we in the National Party do not. We think it is unfair on the claimants it is unfair on the Crown and it is unfair on those who get involved in the hearings before the tribunal.  
So we say these are good measures but they are only part of the story. What is needed is proper funding and proper resourcing—particularly I emphasise proper resourcing achieved by finding historians who can help write the reports. These are the issues the Government needs to face.  
When this Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) becomes law and the Treaty of Waitangi Act is thereby amended the framework for getting on with the job and for completing Sir Douglas Graham’s great achievements is there but a lot more work needs to be done. National will be supporting this bill going through to the select committee but we say that it is only part of the story. This Government’s record on funding the tribunal and indeed on the important work of resolving the historical grievances is particularly poor even by the Government’s standards.