Harawira Hone: Arbitration Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Harawira Hone: Arbitration Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:8981] 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
Tena koe Madam Assistant Speaker. Tenatatou te Whare. When we first came into Parliament I think a lot of the public and I know a lot of the politicians thought that the Maori Party would be a one-issue party—the foreshore and seabed with maybe a bit of social justice chucked in on the side. Now however when people ask what issues are important to us they are no longer surprised when we tell them “Everything.” I am proud to say that after only 18 months in the House everybody now knows that every issue every bill and every policy statement will be responded to by the Maori Party with a strong independent and hopefully influential Maori voice. We want to be able to accentuate the positives of the indigenous world to use those values to improve our wider society to enhance social justice and to help us all live up to the expectations of the Treaty of Waitangi. 
The big question of course is how that influence and those values might impact on this Arbitration Amendment Bill. We know that Maori occasionally use arbitration to deal with rental reviews of Maori land and although there has not been much consultation with Maori over this bill we know from our own discussions with Maori over land issues that the significance of land to tangata whenua is absolutely fundamental. Toitu te whenua whatungarongaro te tangata; the land is permanent though man disappears. 
Of course we have only to think of some of the issues that have occupied the nation’s attention this year to know how important land issues are for Maori including the repossession of Rangiputa Station on the Karikari Peninsula by the people of Ngati Kahu; NgatiHei’s land claims over Ngatea and Whenuakite resulting from Crown action under the native lands legislation to render the tribe virtually landless; the concerns of the people of Whanganui and Tuwharetoa over the sale of the Taurewa block south of Turangi and a nearby block at Raurimu; and the Government’s mishandling of land belonging to Taranaki hapuNgati Tama a Huroa and Titahi. Indeed so important are land issues for Maori that we are considering an amendment to this bill to refer all Maori land disputes to the Maori Land Court. 
Arbitration as a method of solving disputes is a useful tool particularly in commercial litigation but we do not think arbitration of Maori land issues should go through either the District Court or an arbitration appeals tribunal. The Maori Land Court has the expertise to handle complex Maori land issues and is able to deal with land disputes in a more user-friendly way because of its awareness of tikanga Maori and Maori attitudes towards land. The other alternatives are either too lawyer-driven or too costly. So we will recommend that when Maori land or general land owned by Maori as defined in Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 is in dispute the matter should be dealt with not by arbitration but by application to the Maori Land Court. 
There are precedents. Under the Fencing Act and under property law jurisdiction Maori land disputes have been referred from the general court to the Maori Land Court under the terms of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act. 
I also want to look at other areas of the Arbitration Act particularly the area of consumer protection which this bill aims to improve. I note that arbitration can take effect only if it has been agreed to by both parties and that the jurisdiction of disputes tribunals can be set aside if both parties agree to arbitration. As an example of arbitration highlighting the need for consumer protection I turn to the legacy of Sir Apirana Ngata as we farewell his mokopuna the legendary Maori broadcaster Henare Te Ua. One of Sir Apirana’s dreams was to set up a fund to help Maori World War I veterans and in 1954 some 63 applications were received for grants from the Maori Soldiers’ Fund for needy Maori veterans. One of these applications was approved for a sum of £16000 by arbitration but for some reason the Government’s appointee said that “for many reasons it seemed equitable to ask much less …” and the figure was reduced to £8000. The fact that the compensation was reduced by half after arbitration had already been agreed does not say much for the arbitration of the past. 
We are also interested to note the proposal to extend the Arbitration Act to cover employment arbitration which is currently managed through the dispute resolution procedures of the Employment Relations Act. Although that is outside the scope of this bill we certainly agree that it is an idea worthy of further consideration. We do not want to threaten or dilute the good-faith obligations under the Employment Relations Act but it would not hurt to have access to this type of arbitration in the area of employment law. 
Arbitration of course can be a positive and meaningful way of getting justice. It can be even further enhanced through greater recognition and utilisation of tikanga Maori in dispute resolution. This revised bill does much to enact the recommendations of the Law Commission’s 2003 report  
Improving the Arbitration Act 1996 
 and on that basis the Maori Party is happy to support this bill at its second reading. Kia ora tatou.