Paraone Pita: Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Paraone Pita: Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16211] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I move  
That the Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. Tena koe. This bill comes back to this House after having been considered by the Justice and Electoral Committee which unfortunately has recommended that the bill not be passed. It is a bill that I personally sponsored and I am not ashamed to have done so. This bill formalised what New Zealand First indicated it would do prior to the last election. How this bill could be credited to a bigot a redneck a racist or just a plain idiot beggars belief. This bill is not about doing away with references to the Treaty of Waitangi from legislation. It is not about the watering down of the Treaty of Waitangi in legislation. It is not about personalities. In particular it is not about the incumbent as has been suggested by some commentators and it is not about preventing Maori from sitting on land cases—yes indeed; to the member who proffered this preposterous thought I say ae marika. 
This bill is about removing the ability of serving judges of the High Court or Maori Land Court to also sit on the Waitangi Tribunal. The amending legislation enacted in 1998 allows serving and retired judges of the High Court to act as members and as chairpersons of the tribunal. Since the tribunal’s establishment there has been provision for the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court to act as its chairperson and because of that provision that has been the situation to date. Of course that begs the question as to why the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court was appointed and not a retired judge as is allowed by the 1998 legislation. And I should say that during the select committee process although that question was asked by the membership of the committee we did not actually get an answer. As I said during the first reading of this bill it would seem highly dubious to us in New Zealand First that serving judges of either the High Court or the Maori Land Court are allowed to preside over matters in the tribunal when they may have presided over those matters in the High Court or indeed in the Maori Land Court. 
I appreciate that the Hon Peter Salmon QC was asked by the Solicitor-General to undertake an independent review into the appropriateness of the chairperson of the tribunal also holding an appointment to the Maori Land Court. Can I say that the honourable judge the Hon Peter Salmon QC found that there was no inherent conflict. He also pointed out quite correctly that all submitters on the bill opposed it. Now many of the submitters indicated that they could see no reason why there should be a separation of the two appointments. I ought to say that in 2001 the Solicitor-General was asked to provide a similar opinion as to the relevance or irrelevance of the position of chairperson of the tribunal being held by the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court. I quote him: “In the context of the tribunal of course there is a history of conjoint holding of offices and a very good practical reason for this—namely the relative scarcity of prospective members with the necessary expertise.” 
So the suggestion is that Maori Land Court judges are sitting on the tribunal because of the expertise they bring to the position. I would ask then why laypersons of Maori descent who have a knowledge of things Maori are appointed to the same tribunal. I would have thought that it would be the responsibility of those laypersons to bring that knowledge to the tribunal. However people obviously believe that only a judge of the Maori Land Court can do that. Secondly I want to say that although it is recognised that the present judges of the Maori Land Court bring expertise skill and experience to the tribunal in terms of Maori and Maori culture it was not very long ago that the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court and indeed other judges of the Maori Land Court were not even Maori. So we have to ask ourselves why it is then that all of a sudden people who become Maori Land Court judges and who are required to sit on the tribunal need to be Maori and need to have expertise in and knowledge of Maori culture. 
New Zealand First has always been of the view that although we recognise that the learned judges who sit on both the Maori Land Court and the tribunal will know the difference between a situation that presents a conflict of interest and one that does not the fact is that there is still the opportunity for a conflict of interest to arise. I do not in any way doubt the integrity of those persons who have been appointed to those positions. 
I also want to make a comment with regard to the alleged personality issue of both the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court and the chairman of the tribunal being one and the same person. I want to make it quite clear that it was never the intention of New Zealand First to question the present incumbent. We have the highest respect for the knowledge and integrity that he brings to the position. However that does not divert the view of New Zealand First in terms of there being an inherent conflict of interest. 
I do not need to go on too much about this bill. Suffice it to say that while New Zealand First is a party in this House this issue will need to be discussed—not necessarily agreed on but certainly considered—by any party that sees itself as forming the next Government of this country. In conclusion I reiterate the support of New Zealand First for this bill.