Peters Jim: Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Peters Jim: Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4815] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I had not intended to speak in this debate as New Zealand First has indicated its support for the bill. But when I heard the contribution from the United Future party earlier—on its black charger with a white flag with a surrender mark on it as it came to the aid of the Government with regard to urgency—I thought it was quite extraordinary. That charge was accompanied by a comment and I wondered whether that was going to mark United Future’s interest in matters Maori. The United Future member if I understood him correctly said that there is a need for resolution above natural justice. He then went on to say that the process is all important. As that member can boldly make that statement in the House on matters that are before the House now I wondered what comprehensive knowledge of Maori grievances that member and his party have. Let us hear it again: “Resolution should be above natural justice.” 
Maori have cried out for 150 years for natural justice on those issues. Their grievances were heard in the House last night and partly remedied and with this bill we are about to attempt to do the same—that was the attitude of a party in this House and I find it deplorable. That is not the basis for this bill. This bill attempts to correct a number of anomalies that have occurred in the past. The first one is—and the Minister should take great heed of the comments already made—that the Waitangi Tribunal is under-resourced. It is under-resourced in personnel research independence and objectivity and most of all in funding. We will never get beyond what we have now which is a piecemeal year-by-year partial process with two or three decisions unless that issue is seriously addressed. Other speakers have already said that justice is denied if justice cannot be heard and that is the fundamental issue here. If the tribunal is properly managed and resourced how come an issue that arose in the House in 1996 has come back to the House so much later? I heard the speaker’s comment about the fact that it was 1996 but the actual issue is that 4 years later that administration seeks to correct an anomaly. 
Unlike others I am not connected to Wellington but I am connected to Kaipara and I take the issue of the concern in Kaipara seriously. I just hope in our support for this bill that we are not sliding over some of the issues of contention. Members are well aware that judicial review processes would take into account the course of the deliberation the veracity of the evidence heard and the way in which it was finally considered all of which should in most tribunals that I know of be heard by all with the decision given only by those who heard the deliberations. I know that the Government does not worry about that—it has three persons on a committee of 11 that is being asked to consider serious matters. I know that they are not concerned about the process but we are. To that end we hope by our support to aid that slip if one likes with regard to the original Act and to account for the issues that were overseen with regard to membership. 
The second issue I refer to is that I personally am very pleased to see the responsibility for Te Mangai Paho transfer from the Minister of Broadcasting to the Minister of Maori Affairs. Te Mangai Paho was considerably compromised in its deliberations in its earlier years by its tenuous affinity somehow to the Ministry of Commerce. Those who were associated with the establishment of that agency in its early years found that the Ministry of Commerce had far more power to deliberate upon the day-to-day operations of Te Mangai Paho than the Minister of Maori Affairs or the officers who were under that Minster ever had. That was wrong and it accounted for some of the problems that that agency had in the late 1990s. The accountability is finally being put directly on the Minister as has already been mentioned by Mr Hide and that is very very worthwhile indeed. I hope that the Minister has regard to the funding needs of Maori radio if it is to continue into the future. As has already been indicated by my colleague New Zealand First supports the passage of the bill. We hope that the slip that took place regarding membership does not overcome natural justice and perhaps those matters can be explored further in the Committee stage.