Henare Tau: Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Henare Tau: Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16716] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 National will not be supporting the Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill any further either. I want to put the argument in this manner—and I ask my elder— 
Pita Paraone 
: What’s he talking about? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: The member is not my elder? That is fair enough. That is fine. I was just trying to be a bit charitable for once in my life. 
Pita Paraone 
: It’s a surprise. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Yes it did surprise a few people but let us revert to how we usually act. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Please don’t. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: If it were so important to have this bill why was it not part of the coalition negotiations? If this bill and the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill were so important then why did New Zealand First not put them up as cornerstone policies going into a coalition deal with the present Government? I can only suggest and surmise that this measure was not that important a deal to New Zealand First. This bill is New Zealand First’s bread butter and breakfast. It is what it trots out every election time. It is what it trots out to get a bit of sympathy from a certain quarter. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: The Don Brash quarter? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: It is funny that that “ginga” says that— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: The member will use correct names please. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: —OK Mr Darren Hughes—because if it was a “Don Brash” view then why the hell did the Labour Party vote for it to go to the Justice and Electoral Committee? 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: You worshipped Don Brash. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Is it all right for the member to sit in the back row and snipe and say with all of his 22 years of experience that it is a Don Brash thing to do but Labour will vote for it anyway just to keep New Zealand First happy? Is that the principled way to deal with the issues? 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: You were a Brash man. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I am a Brash man? Well I would rather be a Brash man than a Clark lady. The unfortunate thing is— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Anything for a job eh Tau! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Well let us talk about that shall we? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I wonder whether we could talk about the— 
Hon TAU HENARE 
:  Oh no Madam Speaker. If it is all right for him to snipe it is all right for me to respond in kind. If you are going to rule—[ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I do not mind your rulings; your rulings are fantastic. However if I am told to go back to the bill then surely to goodness the member on the other side of the House should be told to zip it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I thank the Hon Tau Henare. Interjections should be short pithy and not be a barrage. They were getting close to being continuous. I wonder whether we all could go back to the bill. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: It is no wonder this bill is not being supported by anybody in the House apart from my colleagues from New Zealand First. As I said earlier that is their stock in trade. It is just outrageous that those members could accuse the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court of having a conflict of interest because of that position and because he also acts as chairperson of the Waitangi Tribunal. I suppose I have a conflict of interest because I was the Minister who appointed the current Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court. If for example the judge was to hear a case about say Ngati Hine and then in his position as chairperson of the tribunal was to hear a case on a similar issue concerning Ngati Hine I am sure—I am under no illusion—that the integrity of the judge would require him to stand aside. So there would be no conflict of interest. 
I ask where this bill comes from. Has there been a conflict of interest? No there has not. Has there ever been a conflict of interest between the two positions? No there has not. This bill is a make-up measure to pander to a certain section of our society and that happens only in an election year. It happens only when the 5 percent is rather a distant hurdle to get over. That is all it is about. Umpteen dozen people turned up to the Maori Affairs Committee—not ordinary Joe Bloggs on the street but well-informed professional people—and gave evidence that there is no and can be no conflict of interest. 
If there were a glaring conflict of interest then a judge would step aside. In fact in other jurisdictions judges of the High Court have sat as a judge on one of the other courts. For example a High Court judge sometimes sits in the Court of Appeal on the criminal appeal or civil appeal divisions; and a District Court judge sometimes serves on other courts like the Environment Court. If there were a possibility of a conflict of interest in those circumstances we can basically guarantee that the judge would stand aside and somebody else would take over. So do we have to be so prescriptive or should we leave it to people’s good judgment—especially these people? They are the very people whom the public rely on to get things right. We may disagree with some of their decisions but essentially those people are held in high esteem and nine times out of 10 get things right. They have the best interests of the community at heart. That is why National will not support the bill any further. 
I will take a couple of minutes to suggest that if the argument is about supporting a bill to the select committee then why not have a system whereby every bill is supported to the select committee? The Hon Dover Samuels said he would support the bill to the select committee to see whether it had merit. If that were the case why do the Labour Party the National Party New Zealand First and everybody else not support every bill to the select committee? 
Hon Mahara Okeroa 
: No merit. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: We do not know that; not until a bill comes out of the select committee. So that is a little point I want to make. We should not use the decision to send or not send a bill to the select committee as an excuse to dump that bill. Nobody believes that. For goodness’ sake we are all grown-ups. We know that the sending of bills to select committees is politics horse-trading and all that sort of thing. But if we are serious about it then let us think very carefully about sending all bills to the select committee. I do not think we would get into that because the system would be far too cumbersome but there we are. 
National will not support the bill. It has no merit and thankfully most of Parliament will vote “no”.