Jones Dail: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Jones Dail: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17057] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 Mr Brownlee has raised a point that suggests he has not understood the importance of 1840 and Dr Mapp in supporting Mr Brownlee in that comment indicates that he has not understood the importance of 1840 either and neither have the Maori Land Court judges. As Dr McHugh said to us and I refer to the Executive Summary 
— 
and I will quote just a small part of it because this is only a 5-minute speech: He said: “In clarifying that the High Court will have to develop a legal test and in doing so it will probably combine factual use and occupation (the Canadian factual-basis test) and the continuity of Maori custom (the Australian normative-basis test). Under both tests the crucial date is that of Crown sovereignty (1840).”  
We have to have a fixed date. It is the common law for goodness’ sake! How many times do we have to tell the National Party? It is the common law on which the Ngati Apa decision was based and which Dr McHugh spoke to us endlessly about. Dover Samuels understands. He is a practical man of the land and the sea. But these National Party people with PhDs and such like just do not get it. We have to have a fixed date. If one does not have a fixed date the Maori Land Court can keep changing the date to suit whoever comes along to it in accordance with whatever their tikanga just might have to be on the day. We could have transfers from 1840 to 1850 to 1870 to 1910 to 1980 to 2000. There could be endless movement and that is why there has to be a fixed time of 1840. That is what I proposed when the Labour Party made the suggestion in all good faith because it was with departmental support. It has to be 1840.  
I am appalled at the interference by the judiciary in this legislation with particular reference to the Maori Land Court. There is a clear constitutional convention that Parliament and the judiciary do not mix. There has been a breach of that convention by the judges of the Maori Land Court. I am concerned that some of those Maori Land Court judges might have a personal interest in this matter again making that breach of the constitutional convention even greater. No judge should come before a select committee as having made submissions. That is understood by everybody but it seems the Maori Land Court. The Maori Land Court has tried to influence Parliament by making a submission to change the 1840 rule. I want to know because I have been informed by a member sitting across there that one of those Maori Land Court judges’ tribes will benefit by a movable 1840 rule. Maori Land Court judges have no right to make a submission and clearly if they do they should disclose their personal interest. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What are you going to do about it? 
DAIL JONES 
: We had it taken out. Those members want it in. We do not want a movable feast. We could not want Maori Land Court judges having a conflict of interest and influencing the decision. The National Party seems to want that. I will be writing to the Chief Justice and to the Attorney-General. I believe that there has to be clear investigation of the Maori Land Court and its view of having a movable 1840. It is like a computer programme to put it in current terms. If one has a software programme one must not have a virus. But to move the date from 1840 onwards would be like a computer virus. At the end of the day the programme would be corrupted and it could come to a halt. One must have a fixed date. That is the point I made. That is the point made by Dr McHugh. It has to be certain. Mr Fairbrother made that point earlier on as well. There has to be a certain date and that is the answer also to the member for the Tainui area Nanaia Mahuta. There has to be a fixed date otherwise all sorts of people will be going to their cuzzies in the Maori Land Court and saying: “Hey bro we’ve done a deal with so and so and there’s a continuity.” and it will just go on forever.  
The whole idea of this is a certain date 1840 and I am absolutely staggered that Maori Land Court judges who also raised questions of judicial appointments want more jobs for the boys and girls. I have never heard of a judicial officer saying to a select committee that they want more jobs better conditions better pay and all those things that flow from it. That is unheard of. The matter should be considered at an executive level. Whoever is in charge of the Maori Land Court should be speaking to the Attorney-General or to the Chief Justice. He or she should not be coming to Parliament. He or she should not be talking about legal aid for example. That is a separate political matter. It is a policy matter and not a matter for the Maori Land Court. It is suggested that it wants more work to feather its own nest and make sure that it continues forever and a day. This is an absolutely appalling and disgraceful situation. The Maori Land Court needs to be fully investigated.