SpeechHon ALFRED NGARO (National): I just stand to take a call on this Part 1. We heard in this House the Prime Minister declare the reasons for the speed of this process. It was not only because of the pandemic but that in order to mitigate that speed of the process we had the opportunity to have an exposure draft sent out to those of concern those who would make a contribution.In regards to this bill I want to ask a number of questions to the Attorney-General. In particular he's made comments in regards to marae being taken out. But I want to ask him the first question: when did he receive the advice that was given from the exposure draft given to Māori? I've got a list of a number of Māori academics and those who are quite prominent in Māoridom but also in the judicial system both in academic and in practice who gave some advice. I'd like to know from the Minister: when did he receive that advice? And when he did receive that advice how did he accommodate for the advice that was given by Māoridom in this particular instance to the issues of concern that were raised?The Minister has stood in the House—and I acknowledge the fact of the changes that have been made through the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). I acknowledge the fact that the Hon Kelvin Davis had explained the reason for this that there had been others. The Attorney-General talked about Willie Jackson. There were others in the Māori Council who talked about this. And then he gave a definition an interpretation as the reasons it was taken out. But I want to remind the Minister because I'm sure that he has read the advice that was given to him which was given quite early on by the way to those—earlier than we received it. We received it around about half past 5 on a Monday afternoon. So this consultation process I think should be challenged.But here's some of the advice that was given by those to the Attorney-General I'm sure and to the Government. Their first statement was this: There is neither a general Treaty clause nor any obligation to have regard to the Treaty or its principles at any point of decision making or performance of functions under the Act." That's exactly the point. While I acknowledge the changes that have been made through the SOP the point is that when you have a reference point you can then determine the decisions so that you don't make the mistakes to try and change them or to try and define whether you need further consultation with others around. Why? Because you're guided by the determination of the principles that are here.Can I remind us in the committee not just the Attorney-General that the Treaty of Waitangi is based on the principle of a word called kawenata. Not just partnership kawenata is about a covenant and here's what it clearly states and here's the reasons why I think that's important: because a covenant in the meaning of kawenata is a covenant a testament a charter a contract. It's an undertaking that binds parties to a permanent moral and irrevocable relationship. That's the reasons why we have it and at the heart of a bill that's coming before this House. Again we don't challenge the what—we know what needs to happen—we're challenging the why. What I'm challenging here today is this: that at the heart of this relationship which is a foundation of this nation of two peoples that are reflected in the covenant relationship why was it not taken into account? You can change the deck chairs you can change the SOPs to accommodate to make it look like it appeases people but at the heart of it you've forgotten the principles that are critically important.I say this to the committee. I say this to the history and the heritage of this place because we're all accountable. But I'm now saying to you that is in charge to you that is in a position where you are in charge of this bill that if you cannot uphold a covenant relationship between Māoridom—and I say this to you and to the nation of New Zealand—then you're not upholding a relationship of trust with the people of New Zealand because that's what it goes to the heart of. If you cannot understand the key principles of what that means—sorry Mr Chair; I didn't want to bring you into the debate but to the Government of the day: if you cannot take into account the advice that was given in the exposure draft that the Prime Minister stood in this House and said was critically important because of the speed of the process we wanted to acknowledge and to engage and yet they have been forgotten like the funeral directors like those in the churches like those in other places around the country.The nation is waking up to see that under this Government it's not the what that people are arguing; it's the how you are going about it. You are giving extraordinary powers. You're going to the point where the goodwill that has been given by this nation to the governance of this country to lead us to a place of safety and wellbeing is now being trashed and taken away.I want to just finish off my comments there but I want to say to the Minister that the question is: when did he receive those comments? How did he accommodate the views that were stated—and there were a number of them—in this report that I have before me? How did he accommodate them or was it just a casual conversation? You mentioned about Willie Jackson—can I also say that when you use the definition and your interpretation of "marae" that they had dual roles not only as places of cultural significance but also as social services well I'd like to say the same thing too. That goes the same for churches. The number of churches that are now having a dual role of not only places of worship but also places of serving their community through the outreach of social services is right up and down this country so they are no different at the same time too. So I don't buy the excuse or the reasons that were given that those maraes have a dual role.I'd like the Minister to answer those questions. I'd like him to take in consideration that was given to him in the exposure draft that was submitted and again to answer the question: why is it that those views and those comments were not taken into consideration and all we're doing now is just trying to tidy up? It's just like we got the rubber; we're going to rub it out. We're going to change it put it in an SOP Part 2 make it look like it accommodates and appeases the people. This is not just for Māoridom; this is for all New Zealanders who are starting to wake up that their civil liberties and their civil rights—the goodwill is about to run out and when it does you'll see a backlash of people starting to say enough is enough."