Flavell Te Ururoa: Central North Island Forests Land Collective  Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Central North Island Forests Land Collective  Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Sitting date: 23 September 2008. Volume:650;Page:18959. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. My point of order is along the lines of what the Hon Tau Henare was discussing this morning. It has come out of the discussion about the provision for debate of amendments to do with Treaty settlements. By way of providing some background—I am not sure whether you were in the Chair at the time Mr Chairperson—let me take you through the issue. 
My amendments last night sought to amend clause 11 of the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill. They were ruled out of order in accordance with Speakers’ ruling 110/2 which states: “An amendment that purports to amend an agreement reached between the Crown and other parties is out of order in a bill to give effect to that agreement.” I ask that you as the Chair or the Speaker’s office or whoever deliberates on these issues look at this particular issue on the ground that the agreement that the Te Arawa bill gives effect to is not an agreement between the Crown and another party. The deed of settlement has been signed by the Government and another party but the Government is not the Crown. Shall I carry on Mr Chair? OK I will carry on. The deed of settlement has been signed by the Government and another party but the Government is not the Crown. The agreement becomes one between the Crown and another party only after Parliament has passed the legislation and the Order in Council has been signed by the Governor-General on behalf of the Sovereign. The point is one of I think fundamental constitutional importance: who and what is the Crown? 
I emphasise that the Maori Party supports the legislation—this bill and the Te Arawa legislation—but we uphold the Treaty of Waitangi as the founding constitutional document of this nation and we assert the value of the principles of the Treaty to regulate behaviour. It is incumbent on this Parliament to deal with matters involving tangata whenua in particular on the basis of Treaty principles—mutual respect reasonable cooperation and the utmost good faith. We are not advocating what are often termed in Parliament as frivolous vexatious or unreasonable amendments to legislation giving effect to agreements that have been reached between the Government and the Treaty partners. No that is not it. Our question is one of a constitutional nature: what is the purpose of bringing this bill before Parliament if it is true that the agreement has already been signed by the Crown? What is the purpose of seeking Royal assent to the Act once the bill has been passed by Parliament? Where does sovereignty lie if an agreement signed by a Minister of the Crown supersedes the authority of Parliament and the Executive Council? 
As the Hon Tau Henare has talked about we have called for submissions on Treaty settlement bills such as this one and the Te Arawa bill. The Maori Affairs Committee has listened to the submitters presenting reasoned and rational points of view. What is the point if Parliament simply ignores what the people have to say because the deal is already basically done? It is a fundamental principle of Westminster democracy that Parliament is sovereign and regulates its own procedures through Speakers’ rulings among other ways and it has been that way since way back when—the Magna Carta of 1215. Established conventions separate the powers of the legislature—Parliament that is—from the Government and the judiciary. Each guards its roles jealously. Parliament should not allow its powers to be constrained or allow itself to be seen to be in effect just a rubber stamp for the executive. 
Mr Chairperson all that I ask as a representative of the Maori Party is that you give consideration to looking at this issue to possibly giving a new ruling that might clarify it and more important perhaps to having a debate in respect of what is fundamentally from our perspective a constitutional matter. I am sorry that I have taken quite a bit of time but it was important to try to give you some background. I place the issue before Parliament at this point because we are in the Committee stage there are a number of other speakers and provisions to come and I want to take a call in respect of Part 2.