Prebble Richard: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Prebble Richard: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:21894] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 The Minister is mistaken. Let me explain how he is mistaken. Clause 91—to take one example—concerning the New Zealand Conservation Authority and relevant conservation boards states that they must observe this provision. And what do they have to observe? They have to observe schedule 12. So when they are making orders with regard to land they have to see whether it fits in with this “gods sky lands and seas”—that is what it says. The Minister said that at no point would a judge have to rule on that matter. Well actually a judge could easily have to rule on it because if a conservation board decided to make an order with regard to a piece of land that is described in this bill and if a member of the iwi believed that the order was not in line with his or her religious beliefs the judge would then have to look at this provision and would somehow or other have to decide whether a practical conservation order like putting in a fence is in line with this sort of statement: “the celestial realm the cosmic emanations of the divine beginning the world and its creation and the evolution of the earth and its people”. 
I have been on the Maori Affairs Committee and I remember when one of the High Court judges appeared to give evidence as High Court judges did. It was Justice Baragwanath someone who is very sympathetic to things Maori. He asked how on earth he was expected as a judge to be able to give a judgment on those sorts of phrases. He was referring to a case he had heard down in Dunedin where apparently an early Maori god—I suppose we would say—had pissed into the ocean. He said that an iwi group came to court and said that as a result of that the dredging being proposed by the harbour board was a religious insult. The judge asked the committee as the Government had put into statute the fact that he was to take note of Maori religious values how he was supposed to make that judgment. He said he was trained in the law not theology. That is what the High Court judge said. 
As I have just pointed out to the Minister in the chair Mark Burton I can see a provision and I can see easily how this Parliament is asking a judge to make a judgment of that sort—which the Green MP could not make. She would not know how to make it yet she is telling us that we should include it in the bill even though the Green Party tramples on other people’s religious beliefs. If this provision was a Christian provision the Green Party would be the first party to jump up and down and oppose it absolutely. The godless Labour Government would be absolutely opposed to any Christian views being put into this bill. It has been quite happy to trample over Christian views in the last 6 years yet it introduces this provision. 
I challenge any Government member to give us a theological discussion on this provision for 5 minutes and then tell us how High Court judges are supposed to interpret it. They cannot do it. They know that it is PC nonsense. At the minimum they put it in just to reach a settlement instead of making a statement of principle for New Zealand that this Parliament does not impose religious beliefs on anyone and that it does respect other people’s religious beliefs—even though I suspect that there are very few members of this iwi who actually believe this. That is what I suspect. There might be some but I suspect that most do not because I notice that many of them belong to various Christian churches and this is not in line with those beliefs. So I ask the Minister why we are putting something into the law when we have heard from the judges themselves that they will interpret it if they are required to but they do not know how on earth they are supposed to do it. As a lawyer I say that the judges cannot do it. I have seen the Deputy Prime Minister attacking the courts and saying that the courts are creating law but no they are not. 
Hon Taito Phillip Field 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This is the third time I have called and it is the third time you have given the call to Opposition members. I thought that there was some arrangement in terms of alternate calls for the two sides of the Committee. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Thank you for raising that—I was not aware that it was your third call. Your other call was after an earlier Labour call. I noticed that and Mr Prebble was sort of part-way through what he wanted to say. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I will try to allow that member to take a call so I will not take the full 5 minutes. I just remind the Committee that senior Government members—in fact the Deputy Prime Minister and the Attorney-General—have risen in this Chamber and been extremely critical of Her Majesty’s judges. How can we criticise the judges when we are passing a provision like this which no member of Parliament including the Green MP can interpret? I pointed out one example but there could be others of a conservation board being told by law that when it is making conservation decisions on drainage and the like it must take notice of schedule 12. I have read it. I was raised in the Church and have no idea what some of these provisions mean. How is one supposed to practically apply that if one is a layperson on a conservation board? I cannot see how he or she can do it and I cannot see how a judge can do it. Why are the Government and the Greens passing bad law? How on earth is that settling a grievance when no member of this Chamber can tell me how to apply in practical terms a clause like the one the conservation board is required to apply to a piece of land? I am not making it a question of religious beliefs; I am just saying that with regard to the law it is mumbo-jumbo and we should not be passing bad law.