Turei Metiria: Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Turei Metiria: Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16713] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I congratulate my colleague Hone Harawira on his contribution to this debate because I agree with virtually everything he said. I will talk about the Green Party view on this bill which is very similar although it will not be put in such an elegant or passionate way I think. 
It interests me a great deal that New Zealand First has a tendency to put forward into the ballot bills that concern the Treaty of Waitangi in various ways. In fact as far as I can remember—and I have been here for a wee while now—there has been only one New Zealand First bill pulled from the ballot that did not concern the Treaty. A number of them have concerned the Treaty and all of those bills have been focused on undermining the role of the Treaty in legislation and in society. That raises a great deal of concern. It means that when the Greens approach legislation like this Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill from New Zealand First given that it concerns the Treaty as well we do so with a great deal of suspicion that the purpose of this legislation is about undermining the Treaty about eliminating it from the law books and from the community’s view and in some way about taking an anti-Maori approach. 
It is very sad that a party that has a number of Maori MPs—which it certainly did in the last Parliament—is happy to promote such legislation to the House and that its Maori MPs are then encouraged or required to promote that legislation through the House as well. I have some sympathy for the members who are in that position because I think that it puts them in an inherent conflict of interest which is just the situation that they expect the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court and the chairperson of the Waitangi Tribunal to be in. 
Getting to the bill itself as far as I can tell from my work on the Justice and Electoral Committee there is no requirement that the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court also be the chairperson of the tribunal. The law simply allows for that to happen recognising that there is still a shortage of people with the kind of expertise needed and it makes sure that regardless of other circumstances it is possible to have the most highly skilled person for both those jobs doing both those jobs. Given that it is not a mandatory requirement there really is no need for legislation that takes that opportunity away because it simply undermines the ability of Maori to take up these positions and fulfil these seats of power. 
One of the issues raised by the select committee was that the pool of people available for positions like this in a number of positions like this is still very small. That is quite true. That is because there have been decades—in fact a century and a bit—of under-representation of Maori in the higher reaches of education and there continues to be a lack of Maori getting the kind of education and experience that is needed to do this kind of work. One might reflect for example on the universities that are currently going through the process of using funding formula issues to restrict access to some of the first-year arts and Maori courses which again will have a disproportionate effect on Maori. It will mean that they will have much greater difficulty in accessing tertiary education at the degree and post-degree level so that they are then able to have the kind of education the kinds of qualifications they need to get the work experience they need to do this kind of work. 
There is a systemic issue with education that prevents Maori from getting the kind of education needed so that we can grow the pool of people who are able to do this work. Having said that we are doing a little bit better. I have always been enormously amazed at the talent skill and knowledge of the people whom I went to law school with for example. We have some fantastic examples of those people doing amazing work in their community and that pool is growing slowly. But the systemic barriers to it continue to exist and this legislation is simply another part of that systemic barrier. This provides a barrier at the top end. Where the universities are putting in barriers at the bottom end New Zealand First wants to put barriers at the top end again to prevent Maori from taking up these positions of considerable responsibility and authority. Again this is a deeply anti-Maori measure that is promoted by a party with Maori MPs who should know better. 
One of the other issues raised in the select committee was that resources are necessary to ensure that a person who is doing both jobs is able to do both jobs well and effectively. That is always an issue for Maori organisations of any description—that there are simply not the resources available. The Greens are certainly of the view that the Waitangi Tribunal is insufficiently resourced to carry out the work that it is trying to do. The tribunal is often in quite a conflicted position because it acts as an arbiter or an assessor of the wrongs that were committed against Maori by the State in various forms over many years yet it does not have the full resources it needs to do that work as well as it could. It does a fantastic job with the resources it has but it could do much better with more and it is still pulled into a lot of the Government policies. For example Michael Cullen the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations said in the select committee today how pleased he was to see the Waitangi Tribunal the Office of Treaty Settlements and the Crown Forestry Rental Trust working together around Government policy. But of course that raises real questions about the role of the tribunal as an independent arbiter of the wrongs that were committed against Maori when working with the Government on a policy that seeks to restrict their compensation if you like to less than 1 percent of the value of the properties they lost. 
So there is still a real issue around the resourcing of the tribunal and the Maori Land Court to make sure that they can do their work well. I am pleased that the select committee referred to that in its report so that it could be brought to the attention of the House and so that the whole concept and issue of resources for these organisations and for the people who work there can be raised continually for people’s purview. 
Mr Harawira raised an interesting question around the role of Labour in supporting this legislation. I know that Labour has supported a number of New Zealand First members’ bills—including for example the foetal criminal responsibility bill which was promoted by Ron Mark and other legislation like the members’ bills promoted by New Zealand First that have called for the elimination of references to the Treaty of Waitangi from legislation. I do think this is an ethical issue for the public to be aware of. Labour and New Zealand First have a political agreement that Labour will support the first readings of all of New Zealand First’s members’ bills going to a select committee whether or not individual Labour members agree with them. This is a big issue especially when members’ bills generally involve conscience issues or issues that are of particular concern to individual members. At times other members of other parties will want to make a personal statement or a personal stand on those issues and I think they should be entitled to do so. 
So a political agreement between these two parties—Labour and New Zealand First—prevents individual Labour members from being able to express their real view. They have to vote for and have their name recorded in favour of legislation that they are personally opposed to. I have great faith that Labour’s Maori members oppose this legislation as I am sure they did when it came to the New Zealand First bill to eliminate references to the Treaty from legislation. I am sure that many Labour members were also opposed to Ron Mark’s foetal criminal responsibility bill. How ethical is it for MPs to be required to vote against their conscience and their personal views on such serious matters and on personal matters in a context where members would ordinarily have the opportunity to express their own views on members’ bills? I think it is an unfortunate state of affairs that Labour has got itself into with that political agreement. I think it is highly unethical. 
The Green Party has done very well with its members’ bills without having such an agreement. In fact we are the only party to have had members’ bills passed into law. Currently three pieces of legislation are fully Green Party Acts and we will add another two Acts in the next few months. We will have achieved five Acts not because of an unethical deal that was done with another party but because we have done the work and put up the bills that get the legislature’s support. I think that is a much more ethical position than that proposed by New Zealand First and Labour. Thank you.