Flavell Te Ururoa: Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13435] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
:  
Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tatau. Morena ki a tatau i tenei ata. I thought it would be appropriate to provide the Maori Party perspective on the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill and say from the outset that we are supportive of its intent. My job is to raise a couple of the issues that were raised through the submissions provided to the Justice and Electoral Committee and give some overview from our perspective. 
The passage of people across the Tasman is a phenomenon that appears to have also included Maori in its wake. In 2006 a report namely  
Maori in Australia: Nga Maori i Te Ao Moemoea 
 predicted that between 115000 and 125000 Maori are living in Australia. We in the Maori Party have been over to Australia having been asked by whanau members here to make contact with Maori there and we can see the full extent of the challenges our people face in trying to maintain Maori cultural practices and in nurturing their sense of Maori identity in Ahitereiria te whenua moemoea. Despite the best attempts and efforts of whanau to bring loved ones home it is fair to conclude that a significant number of Maori will continue to call Australia their home away from home. 
This bill recognises therefore that there has been a significant increase in the movement of people assets and services between New Zealand and Australia. Almost 450000 New Zealanders live in Australia and I am told that about 60000 Australians live in New Zealand. 
Given the fact that Maori have been attracted across the Ditch to Te Ao Moemoea it was somewhat of a surprise that there were no submissions whatsoever from iwi during the select committee process. Mind you the select committee received a grand total of three submissions only I am told from interested groups and individuals. However one person by the name of Siaosi Tofi raised the concern that the bill will affect Maori interests and unfairly disadvantage Maori. Siaosi asked that the select committee investigate properly the potential effect of this legislation on Maori and its implications for them. In particular the submitter was concerned that Australian judges might decide civil disputes concerning Maori land or cultural and intellectual property. 
The impact of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was also mentioned. As members will be aware the New Zealand Government has recently expressed its support for the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Australian Government expressed its support for it in April 2009. The question that Siaosi Tofi asked was: “Might there be a situation where the trans Tasman agreement and this bill come into direct conflict with the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples to which NZ is a signatory?”. The Ministry of Justice I am pleased to say addressed the concerns raised by Siaosi. Clause 24 of the bill and section 19 of the Australian Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act adopt a common forum or give-way rule as between Australia and New Zealand. This should ensure that where the New Zealand court is more appropriate to determine a proceeding that proceeding will be heard here and not in Australia. This will assist New Zealand - based litigants including Maori. Although the range of enforceable Australian judgements is being expanded this will not have an adverse effect on the issue of Maori land. 
Nevertheless despite the submission of Siaosi Tofi this bill is primarily focused on the challenges posed by trans-Tasman trade relationships. The level of investment in goods and services brings about a greater number of disputes involving individuals or businesses with a cross-border element. This bill aims therefore for the dispute resolution processes to be cheaper more efficient and less complicated. This bill is supposedly intended to deliver tangible benefits to individuals and businesses in New Zealand and Ahitereiria. We therefore support it here at its third reading.