Māori Purposes Bill (No 2)

I move, That the Māori Purposes Bill (No 2) be now read a second time. Māori purposes bills generally tidy up legislation that relates to Māori affairs, Māori land, and other Māori purposes. In this instance the bill proposes amendment to the following three statutes: the Treaty of Waitangi Act, the Broadcasting Act, and the Maori Land Amendment and Maori Land Claims Adjustment Act. The subject areas covered by the bill range over the operations of the Waitangi Tribunal, the responsibilities for the Māori Broadcasting Funding Authority, and the number of fishing licences available to the people of Ngāti Tuwharetoa under the 1926 Act. Māori purposes bills can be viewed as a convenient and necessary vehicle to provide updating and ongoing maintenance of the wide range of legislation that affects the affairs of Māori.

Part 1 proposes amendments to the Treaty of Waitangi Act in relation to the operation of the Waitangi Tribunal. Clause 4 proposes to give statutory validation to changes of membership that occurred in three tribunals, these being the Wellington inquiry, Wai 145; the Kaipara inquiry, Wai 674; and the Hauraki inquiry, Wai 686. The clause will clarify the status of the changes of membership that have occurred in the three inquiries mentioned.

The main amendments in the part are in clause 5, and give express statutory powers for the replacement of members and presiding officers, and the appointment of acting presiding officers. The circumstances and conditions required before these statutory powers can be exercised is also specified. The new provisions will make the position very clear.

I wish to comment on the amendment proposed by the select committee to Part 1. The intention of the select committee’s amendment is to impose a requirement that only a member of the tribunal who is a barrister or a solicitor of the High Court of at least 7 years standing is qualified to be appointed as an acting presiding officer. The select committee has indicated that it is satisfied that the bill as drafted reflects advice given to Te Puni Kōkiri by the Solicitor-General and the Crown Law Office.

The amendments in Part 2 are to effect technical changes following the transfer of ministerial responsibility for Māori broadcasting policy from the Minister of Broadcasting to me as the Minister of Māori Affairs. The transfer took place in the year 2000, and the amendments in Part 2 are straightforward technical amendments.

Part 3 proposes an amendment to the Maori Land Amendment and Maori Land Claims Adjustment Act, to increase the statutory number of licences issued to members of Ngāti Tuwharetoa to permit fishing for imported species in Lake Taupo. The number of licences to which Ngāti Tuwharetoa is entitled has not been adjusted since the Act was passed in 1926. The number of general fishing licences for the lake has increased substantially since 1926, by 1,515 percent.

I urge that the bill proceed through its remaining legislative stages with some urgency. With particular regard to Part 1, the need for urgency for the rapid passage of the bill has been expressed in submissions by claimants awaiting the release of the report in relation to the Wellington claim. The urgent nature associated with the bill’s passing has been consistently reiterated by the Waitangi Tribunal and claimants. The proposed clauses in Part 1 provide clarity and certainty in terms of the status of the specific tribunal inquiries, the ability to appoint replacement presiding officers or members, and the ability to appoint acting presiding officers. The clauses thereby address significant concerns of tribunal claimants, the Crown, and New Zealanders as a whole.

Finally, I wish to acknowledge the members of the Māori Affairs Committee for the diligence and the care they demonstrated in their consideration of the bill—all members. That is reflected in their report on the bill to the House. I commend this bill to the House.

I have much pleasure in rising to make a contribution to the report back of this bill. I note that it is rather ironic that the Minister of Māori Affairs said he hoped this bill would proceed with some urgency. We are in urgency, but I note that this bill has been ready for report back for some months now. That is why we in National are very pleased to be in the House to progress the bill to its conclusion.

In respect of the first part of the bill, which deals with changes to the Treaty of Waitangi Act, there is a clause that validates the constitution of the Waitangi Tribunal for three inquiries. I have a bit of personal understanding of the difficulties that can be posed by the fact that there have been changes of membership in relation to the Kaipara, Hauraki, and Wellington Tenths inquiries, so I am pleased to see that this bill moves to validate those inquiries. In a sense, there is a slight—but only slight—modification, under clause 4, to the rights to challenge, but in all other respects the existing rights to challenge remain in place. I think it is not only sensible but proper that that be done, and it will enable the release of the Wellington Tenths inquiry report, which was one of the main issues that submitters came to the committee about. It was a real concern that a report has been waiting to be issued. Hopefully, the minute that this bill is passed into legislation, that report will be brought out. So the validation clause is supported.

There are also changes promoted to the Treaty of Waitangi Act to give the chairperson the power to replace presiding officers and to replace members. There was an issue there, which we covered reasonably exhaustively in the select committee, and that, of course, was the issue of natural justice—the underlying principle being that only those who hear should decide—and the right to a fair hearing. Again, advice was sought, first of all by the Minister, before the bill came to the select committee, and we also satisfied ourselves that those changes were necessary.

They are proposed on the basis of a quite strict set of criteria, and I want to refer to those, from the bill itself. The chairperson may appoint a replacement presiding officer, and may also appoint a replacement member, but, as I said, there are strict conditions applying before those appointments can occur. The power can be used only if the presiding officer concerned has ceased to hold office—and that is in relation to his or her actual appointment—if the personal circumstances of the presiding officer or member holding the office are such, in relation to his or her physical or mental condition, that he or she ought to be replaced; and if, in the opinion of the chairperson, it would be unreasonable to expect the presiding officer or member to continue to participate in an inquiry. There is also an additional criterion, which is that the chairperson must not exercise that power unless there is an adequate record of the part of the inquiry that has already been heard. That is pretty important. The tribunal is to make sure, as it proceeds with claims and hearings, that there is an adequate record in existence, and the provision also states that it is reasonable to expect that the replacement officer review that record.

Although clause 5 does throw up an important underlying issue, the issue of natural justice, it is the conclusion of the National caucus that, on balance, provided that the strict criteria are followed, and provided that the power is used only in relation to those criteria, the clause probably makes sense, the set of changes are appropriate, and we support them.

One other matter in relation to clause 5 is the provision for the chairperson to appoint an acting presiding officer. The original proposal could have brought into the chair a person or persons with no legal background. There was agreement by all committee members that that probably was not appropriate in the context of a semi-judicial body, so the power to appoint an acting presiding officer will occur only when it results in a replacement presiding officer who is a barrister or solicitor of 7 years’ standing. That proposal, in relation to that part of the bill, is supported by all of the committee’s membership. On that basis, National is very happy with that amendment, as well.

In terms of Part 2 and the Broadcasting Act, National has some problems with this part. It has been signalled that we will be voting against this part. It may be a technical amendment in that, as the Minister said, pursuant to a Cabinet minute, the responsibility for Te Māngai Pāho has been with the Minister of Māori Affairs rather than with the Minister of Broadcasting. But we are tending to look at this amendment in relation to all of the debacle that has occurred over the last 2 years with regard to Māori television, Māori broadcasting generally, and the inability of this Minister to get that television service up and running. It has seemingly been one set of unfortunate circumstances after another. It is now understood that that television service might be up and running by the end of the year. This change might be a proper change to make, but we do not have a lot of confidence—not that the Minister of Broadcasting always engenders confidence, either, I might add—that the change is actually warranted.

In relation to the third part of the bill, there is a note in the select committee report about my standing at a distance from this provision. I do not intend to refer to it at all in any of these comments, and neither do I intend to vote on it.

So, in all, the National Opposition is very pleased to see that at long last this bill has come up, and that the intention is to pass it through all stages today. We are very supportive of the changes to the Treaty of Waitangi Act, particularly the change that validates the three inquiries. Although the changes are sensible and appropriate, they do raise an underlying issue that this Government must address—though it is not addressable in this context—and that is the chronic underfunding of the Waitangi Tribunal and its lack of resourcing. These changes are necessitated by the fact that Waitangi Tribunal inquiries are lengthy, complex, and take a number of years to progress. I was one of the original members on the Wellington Tenths inquiry, which started in the early 1990s. I am now here in Parliament, so I will be very pleased to see the report on that being issued.

But I think this Government has put maybe half a million dollars of funding in the last 4 years into the operations of the tribunal. That is an underlying issue that must be addressed. It is not right. Justice delayed is justice denied. Some of these claims are taking too long, and I ask the Minister to needle his colleague the Minister for Courts, and see whether there is an opportunity to get some more funding to the tribunal.

I just raise again the issue of the potential conflict of interest for me, in relation to Part 3.

United Future supports this bill in its entirety. Perhaps, in beginning, I can comment on United Future’s involvement in getting legislation through with urgency. I want to commend, first of all, the Labour Government for working with United Future on this urgency week, and addressing with us the legislation that should or should not be contained in the urgency motion. I am delighted to see the progress that the Government has been able to make under urgency. It was somewhat of a surprise when I realised last night that I might be speaking on this bill, if not last night, at least this morning, and that, effectively, we are up to No. 14 on the Order Paper. It is pleasing to see the legislation being passed so quickly, given the backlog of about 90 bills at the time that United Future first arrived here in the House.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: Because of the Greens.

The backlog, as I understand it, was because of a lack of cooperation by the Green Party. United Future is pleased to have a good relationship with Labour that allows our involvement at that level, and that has enabled us, for example, to promote the Ngati Ruanui Claims Settlement Bill but also to exclude legislation that we felt was too contentious to be dealt with this week.

I am concerned, though, about the Government’s delays in progressing Treaty of Waitangi grievance settlements. I alluded to that matter during the reading of the Ngāti Ruanui legislation, and, do so again with the Māori Purposes Bill. I believe that the delays in getting this much-needed legislation through the House are reprehensible. I note that the Waitangi Tribunal claim was filed in 1987; the hearings took place between 1991 and 1999; and the decision was issued, as I understand it, in late 2002, although I note that in April 2002 the Evening Post suggested that the Government was unduly delaying the progress of the bill, and questioned the reasons for that. So it has taken some 15 years for this claim to be resolved.

Given the continuing comments made by the Government, and, in particular, the Attorney-General, about the progressing of claims in a timely fashion, it seems astonishing to me that the issue raised in the first part of this Māori Purposes Bill—namely, the inadequacy of the legislation that allowed changes in the make-up of the tribunal—was not dealt with years ago, during the course of the hearings. I know, for example, that my colleague the Hon Georgina te Heuheu, as she has stated, was on the tribunal in 1994, and, clearly, had to leave the tribunal upon becoming a member of Parliament. So it is clear that the issues that are giving rise to this bill, in terms of there being sufficient authority for the tribunal actually to issue a decision despite changes in its membership, are things that the Government has been aware of for many years. It is a concern that it did not address those issues, in order to have them dealt with, until after the decision had been made.

One can understand that the Government might delay dealing with the issue until it became a matter of significance, but surely this legislation should have gone through before the decision on the Wellington Tenths Trust claim, in particular, was completed and was ready to be issued, instead of our having this ridiculous situation where the tribunal has made its decision but cannot release it until this bill is passed. We have had to wait for months and months to have this legislation passed, so that a decision that has already been made can be released. I know that, already, details of some of the effect of the decision have been released, although they should not have been. I myself have heard of some of the impact of the decision that is going to be released, and comments have been made in terms of the findings.

That is the danger we get into: because the decision has been reached, but the court has not released it and has held up actually making it public, all of a sudden rumour and speculation, and even informal advice in terms of what the decision will contain, get out into the public sphere. That undermines the whole judicial process. It undermines the whole treaty settlement process. It is not conducive to our resolving treaty grievances, either in a way that is sustainable or in a timely fashion. There are those who, having heard rumours of what might be in the decision, are worried about the impact of it—about how much Wellington land will be going to the Wellington Tenths Trust, and things of that nature. This delay serves only to fuel those concerns, and make things difficult in terms of the resolution of grievances and reconciliation between Māori and the Crown.

So I am astonished that that delay has occurred, but at least we have finally got the bill back in the House. I notice that it was introduced in March 2002; that its first reading began in May 2002, but was interrupted by the election, and was completed in September 2002; and that it was referred to the Māori Affairs Committee. The committee spent approximately only 3½ hours on hearing submissions and considering the bill. It seems to me that that could have happened fairly quickly, the bill could have come back to the House, and we could have been dealing with this matter a lot sooner instead of waiting until April 2003. So I am concerned about the Government’s lack of commitment to speedy or timely resolution of grievances.

There are other examples of that, such as the delays in the release of the report on the Gisborne casebook inquiry, which we were promised in September—6 months ago—was being finalised. I understand that it was completed in December but is yet to be launched publicly. I am concerned about the reason for the delays before that report is released, because they will impact on the budgetary process and on the ability to extend the casebook process beyond simply the Gisborne case. I would like to see it addressed in the Budget, with funding being provided to use that process for the resolution of all treaty claims as far as it is appropriate.

The Ngāti Ruanui bill, again, had to come through under urgency, and has taken far longer than it should. I can only hope that the other stages of the bill—the Committee stage and the third reading—happen very promptly, so that we can get that one signed off and out of the way, and can allow Ngāti Ruanui to get on and organise their affairs with the settlement proceeds.

The first part of this bill deals with the primary conflict between natural justice issues and the need for the tribunal to resolve issues and bring claims to a conclusion. That is a balance that has been discussed within the select committee, and it is fair enough to have that debate. On the one hand there is the natural justice issue of a tribunal that starts hearing a claim being the one that finishes hearing the claim. Litigants can be justifiably aggrieved in situations where they give evidence to one tribunal, then suddenly find, at the time the decision is being made, the tribunal making the decision is not the one that heard what the litigants said, but is a substantially changed panel.

Nevertheless, I do not agree with the Greens. I do not support their claim that natural justice overrides the situation. I think there is an urgent need to resolve these issues and bring claims to a conclusion; it is a matter of urgency. This has taken 15 years. The hearings by the Waitangi Tribunal took 8 years, and to say at the end of 8 years that the tribunal has to go back and start all over again, because of the changes in the tribunal’s make-up, is, frankly, ridiculous. It does nothing to help resolve the grievances we all want to see resolved. To have to rehear everything and relitigate everything after 8 years of hearings is simply a waste of time. Although there is a natural justice claim, the need to resolve issues and bring claims to a conclusion is in everybody’s interests, and is in the interests of both sides of the issue—namely, the Crown and the Māori organisations and iwi that are involved.

There is a parallel, of course, with the select committees. I could not help seeing the parallel with some of us who came into the House and were faced with select committee situations where the submissions had been heard, and the committee that was making the decision was substantially different from the one that had held the hearings. That was the case with the Justice and Electoral Committee and the Retirement Villages Bill, where five of the seven members now on the select committee did not hear the bulk of the submissions. The Greens did not seem to object at that point. But we were able to cope with that, because we were able to read the written submissions and we were able to rely on the officials’ reports. Although that is not the most desirable course of action, and is unfortunate, it is nevertheless unavoidable. We managed to cope, in the same way that the tribunal is also able to cope in its hearings.

I support Part 1, and we commend the bill to the House.

New Zealand First supports the Māori Purposes Bill (No 2) and recommends that it be passed. Part 1 amends the Treaty of Waitangi Act in relation to the operations of the Waitangi Tribunal. Part 2 deals with the Broadcasting Act, in order to give effect to technical changes in relation to ministerial responsibility for Māori broadcasting policy and Te Reo Whakapuaki Irirangi, also known as Te Māngai Pāho. We of New Zealand First have always had a concern about the time factor and the delays that have been taking place—taking into consideration the challenges that have been put before the select committee and those responsible for this area. In respect of the Maori Land Amendment and Maori Land Claims Adjustment Act, we are happy it has finally been looked at, and that the 1,515 percent increase in general fishing licences can be sorted out and made more equitable.

Basically, we are talking about the amendments in Part 1, which are a result of membership changes during the Wellington Tenths, Kaipara, and Hauraki inquiries. The bill gives guidelines as to the appointment of tribunal presiding officers; the mandates and skills required to be a member of that organisation; and the accountability required.

It has been recommended by the committee that section 5AD(2) of the second schedule, in clause 5, be deleted from the bill, because it would not offer any protection to either claimants or the Crown. The proposed amendment to that clause of the second schedule provides that only a member of the tribunal who is a barrister or solicitor of the High Court of at least 7 years’ standing shall be qualified for appointment as presiding officer under clause 5(1)(a) of the second schedule. The Act currently requires the presiding officer to be either the chairperson, a judge of the Māori Land Court, or a barrister or solicitor of the High Court of at least 7 years’ standing appointed by the chairperson. Under a proposed new clause of the second schedule, the chairperson may exercise the power of appointing an acting presiding officer, only if he or she considers that the tribunal can properly continue to exercise its functions to inquire into the particular claim or other matter with an acting presiding officer. Any person appointed an acting presiding officer would have the same powers as a presiding officer under the Act, and would be able to exercise those powers only for the period of time specified by the chairperson.

In 1996 the acting registrar of the Waitangi Tribunal sought advice on the powers of the chairperson of the tribunal to reconstitute tribunals where members are unable to continue in office. In response to the request, the Solicitor-General advised that if the tribunal was to have express power to permit a substitution of a presiding officer or panel members, the Act should be amended to make sure that the intention to depart from the standard principles of natural justice to meet the needs of the tribunal process was indicated in terms that were clear and unambiguous. As a result of discussion and advice from Te Puni Kōkiri, the Solicitor-General, and the Crown Law Office, the amended clause 5AD(2), on Supplementary Order Paper 76, was recommended. That ensures that only a member of the tribunal who is a barrister or solicitor of the High Court of at least 7 years’ standing shall be qualified for appointment as presiding officer under clause 5(1)(a)(iii) of the second schedule.

Last night we heard the Ngati Ruanui Claims Settlement Bill being read. We heard from those who were against it and from those who were for it. I am happy that the bill has been passed and the people can get on with what they should be doing. There was a spirit of contention during debate on that bill, because, as we all know, others disagreed with it. It will probably be the same with this bill. But for the sake of the citizens of New Zealand, which we all are, we need to move ahead on what is already happening today.

I commend the Māori Affairs Committee for looking at these amendments and making changes that will make this organisation more efficient. I am reminded of the comments made by the National MP Georgina te Heuheu about the funding for the Waitangi Tribunal, and the time it takes to sort out these claims and settle them. I am sure that they can be more efficiently administered, too, and that, rather than our waiting for the year 2050 or however long it will take to settle these claims, they can be more efficiently processed, and the people concerned can be satisfied and get on with life.

As a member of New Zealand First, I recommend that this bill be passed with the amendments made by the Māori Affairs Committee.

I stand, naturally, with previous speakers from this side of the House, the Minister of Māori Affairs in particular, in supporting the passage of the Māori Purposes Bill (No 2). It is interesting to note the amount of Māori legislation that has gone through the House in the last 24 hours. Last night we saw the second stage of the Ngati Ruanui Claims Settlement Bill, and I value very highly the contributions that were made by all members of the House. I am sure we unanimously support Ngāti Ruanui in the challenges ahead of them.

I know there is a parliamentary discipline that we do not bag our friends, particularly in this House, but the fact that the Ngāti Ruanui bill and the Māori Purposes Bill (No 2) are being heard in urgency is a strong indication of this Government’s commitment to getting all legislation on the Order Paper through the House. I do not think there are too many members of the House who mind sitting through the process. It should not be seen as a full performance on the part of the Government, but as a very strong commitment to its legislative programme.

It has already been intimated by a number of previous speakers that a particularly sensitive part of the Māori Purposes Bill (No 2) is Part 1, and the amendments that have subsequently been made to the bill to allow the Waitangi Tribunal to proceed with hearings, so that claimant groups and communities, particularly the Wellington Tenths with Wai 145, Kaipara with Wai 674, and Hauraki with Wai 686, can get on with their business, have their hearings concluded at a reasonable pace, and not have them held up just because there is no quorum on the tribunal. When we consider it, we realise that the tribunal not hearing these cases because there is no quorum is quite ridiculous, and the amendments are appropriate. I acknowledge all parties that have spoken previously. I also acknowledge that the National Party member on the Māori Affairs Committee has issues with Part 2, in terms of the Broadcasting Act. She has stated quite clearly that she will not be supporting that part. We live in a democratic society and I accept that that is how things fold out, but I am sure that by the end of these speeches she will have considered that issue again, and, with a bit of luck, she may change her position. Who knows, miracles do happen in the 21st century!

In my brief speech I also want to cover Part 3, which relates to the Maori Land Amendment and Maori Land Claims Adjustment Act of 1926 as it affects the people of the central North Island, in particular Ngāti Tuwharetoa and their charter licences. There have been no adjustments in this area since the legislation was enacted in 1926. I have to say that for the people of Ngāti Tuwharetoa, this issue has the same effect on them as the peppercorn perpetual leases in, for instance, Taranaki and on the West Coast of the South Island. They have a resource but are not getting any material or financial gain from it. Therefore, that part of the bill is long overdue, and, certainly, will be positively received by Ngāti Tuwharetoa.

I acknowledge too the contributions of the members of the Māori Affairs Committee, in particular the chair for keeping things steady as she goes, as usual, and for allowing all members of the select committee to make a valuable contribution. I particularly acknowledge the submitters, who came from a number of parts of the country to speak to us about their views on various aspects of the bill. I heard a previous speaker say that there were objections to parts of the bill in terms of the charter licences. I can recall only one objection, and it was not a very well put argument in terms of why there should be no increase in licences. I think, overall, the vast majority of those who made submissions agreed that adjustments are well overdue.

I commend the bill to the House, and I congratulate the Minister of Māori Affairs on getting it up the Order Paper.

The ACT party does not support this bill, for the same reasons as were set out in September 2002 when dealing with the bill in the House. We are dealing with a symptom, not the problem. I have just checked with my colleague Georgina te Heuheu about the Wellington Tenths Trust. The inquiry into that case started in 1991, and Georgina te Heuheu was on the tribunal when it started hearing that case. I have just checked with Georgina, and the tribunal still has not reported.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member may not use a member’s first name only. I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 6/1 (Supplement). Members may be referred to by their full names, their titles, or their portfolios.

Thank you. I have just checked with Georgina te Heuheu, and the tribunal still has not reported on that case. Georgina te Heuheu has left the tribunal and become a member of Parliament—

💬 John Carter: And a very good one.

—and a good one—so there is a potential challenge to anything that the tribunal might find. We have the situation of Manu Bennett, who was a young 73 years when that case—

💬 John Carter: Very able.

He was very sprightly and able, and was thinking about becoming a National Party MP. But, sadly, he died at the age of 85 before the case was concluded. So there is a potential challenge there.

This bill allows the chairman of the tribunal to gloss over that and to change its members. But the problem we have is why those cases are taking 12 and 13 years and are still not heard. That is a problem, because how can we have justice if a case before a quasi-court takes a dozen years to be heard and concluded? We could have a situation whereby a tribunal was reporting, yet none of the people doing that reporting had actually heard the evidence. How could that possibly be just or fair? We should be speeding up the process, not allowing a revolving-door policy because members go off the tribunal and become MPs or, sadly, pass away.

I have another concern and it is this. I think that Georgina te Heuheu would agree that there are politics in the Waitangi Tribunal. However, we have a situation whereby the chairperson can throw off a presiding officer because of his or her personal circumstances. How can it possibly be just that the chairperson of the tribunal can get rid of someone who is hearing evidence and replace that person with someone else, because of his or her personal circumstances? I look across to my Māori colleagues, and I ask in which court does that occur in New Zealand? Nowhere! So why are we doing that to Māori people? Why are we not addressing the problem by providing proper resources? The ACT party will be voting against this bill because it denies natural justice.

Part 2 had me a little confused, so I consulted my Ngāi Tahu brother, the Hon Parekura Horomia, the Minister of Māori Affairs. I have been addressing my questions on Māori Sportscasting International to my Ngāi Tahu brother, believing him to be in charge of Te Māngai Pāho—I am getting better at pronouncing it, and I see that the interpreter is nodding his head. I am from the South Island and the Minister knows that our dialect is a wee bit different down there. I have discovered that we are to put the Minister of Māori Affairs in charge of Te Māngai Pāho here. I am pleased about that, because I have been hassling him about that organisation for some time, not realising that that was actually the fault of the Minister of Broadcasting. It was the Minister of Broadcasting who caused the problems in the first place, but it is Parekura Horomia who is doing the clean-up job on Te Māngai Pāho.

I have a few more things for Parekura Horomia that need to be cleaned up. When Mr Peter Bushnell from Treasury comes across to my office I will reveal a bit more to him, and it is along these lines. We have an interesting situation. We have heard about the great capacity-building booze-up, when $5,400 from a capacity-building grant that was supposed to be used for training went on a dinner and drinks for the Labour Party.

💬 David Benson-Pope: Go and have a lie down and take your medicine.

Those members do not like democracy, do they? Let us have a look at this question, which I mistakenly put to the Minister of Māori Affairs. I said that Māori Sportscasting International interested me, because its commentators watched a game and broadcast it on Sky or on the iwi radio network in te reo, and that was great.

💬 Hon George Hawkins: Talk about the bill.

This is about the bill, because the bill is about the Minister who is to be in charge of Te Māngai Pāho. I am pleased that Parekura Horomia is to be in charge of it, because he is doing the business of cleaning that up. I will make a revelation, because Parekura Horomia said to me that Māori Sportscasting International is paid—and I want to read this figure—on average $2,111 per broadcast.

I want to know, and ask that Minister to find this out when he is doing his clean-up, where that money is going. His executive assistant is one of the broadcasters, but she is a volunteer. So how can it cost $2,000? The Minister may say that may be because of the equipment. Well, Sky has been providing, until recently, the studio for free. There is no equipment cost. Te Māngai Pāho has been paying $2,000 per broadcast for volunteers to call a game. In fact, Hemana Waaka once called a game sitting at home with the TV on, and calling into a microphone. Putting the commentary into Māori in that way is very enterprising, but why should that cost the taxpayer $2,111?

That amount is the average. Some of those broadcasts cost $6,000. Thousands and thousands of dollars were spent on the civil servant who was in charge of managing the contract. That is why, when I look at Part 2 and I see that my good friend Parekura Horomia is taking over the Te Māngai Pāho mess from Steve Maharey, I am very pleased. The one thing I do know about Parekura Horomia—and I want to pay him this compliment—is that he actually does not go along with that nonsense. Not from the first moment that I raised the issue of Māori Sportscasting International and the usage of that money on a dinner and drinks, did that Minister agree with that. He sent a message to Te Puni Kōkiri and to Te Māngai Pāho that that is not the standard that we in Parliament and the Government expect.

I did not hear the Minister of Broadcasting say that, nor did I hear the Prime Minister say that. I did not hear Dover Samuels and John Tamihere—who were sucking up the largesse from Te Puni Kōkiri—say that. But the Minister of Māori Affairs has sent a message to Te Māngai Pāho, and I make a commitment to him in this debate that now that he will be, in law, the Minister in charge of Te Māngai Pāho, I will work with him to help him in sorting that out. [Interruption] Oh, I know, the Minister is so pleased. I will be making more and more revelations, but mostly I will just go across the House to him and tell him there is a problem that we need to fix. If we are to spend $12 million on Māori broadcasting, let us make sure it works. Let us stop pretending that spending $12 million is an answer, because the issue is how that money is spent. The Minister knows that. He is not satisfied with what has gone on with regard to Māori Sportscasting International. He is not satisfied that his colleagues have been taking capacity grant money and enjoying the largesse.

I say Parekura Horomia is the sort of Minister that we want to have in charge of Te Māngai Pāho. I look forward to Peter Bushnell coming over to my office as leader of the review team into what has gone on at Te Māngai Pāho, and I tell the Minister that I will be sharing my extensive files and pictures with him.

I am sufficiently inspired to say about the previous speaker, the honourable member of the Opposition, that he referred to the Minister of Māori Affairs as his Ngāi Tahu brother. [Interruption] That is fairly close. One of the unfortunate things about our whakapapa is that we cannot do anything about it. I look forward to a response from my electorate of Te Tai Tonga as to the putative claim of the member’s Ngāi Tahu - tanga, and whether that iwi greets that with the fond reminiscing that that member over there on the Opposition benches so often indulges in.

Having said that, most of the technical aspects of this bill—Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3—have been more than covered. However, as well as being the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, I stand here as someone closely involved with one of the claims that is in this bill. There are three there: the Kaipara, Hauraki, and what is commonly known as the Te Ātiawa claim, but is, essentially, the Port Nicholson claim.

As people have alluded to, there has been a significant time-lapse between this legislation being mooted in 1996 and finally entering this House in 2003. As the honourable member Bill Gudgeon said, the concerns surrounding the membership of the Waitangi Tribunal were first mooted by the then deputy registrar. I must say that this legislation was in 1996. Having been mooted in 1996, it has taken as long as this to reach the second reading. But since we have been in Government we have moved to introduce the bill in 2002, and now to progress it in 2003. I fully support all the measures and provisions that have been taken in the part of the bill that deals with the Waitangi Tribunal’s membership. In doing so, I compliment not only the Minister of Māori Affairs but my colleagues on the Māori Affairs Committee for ensuring that this legislation goes forward.

With regard to the trout fishing licences, the only thing that concerned me was that that matter was last visited in 1926. In that respect, I do not think there was very much disagreement from the select committee.

Again, I will refer back to the previous speaker. After speaking in such glowing terms about the Minister of Māori Affairs and his absolute bent towards transparency and accountability, and his undertaking to review maybe—that may be the wrong word—the actions of both the agencies mentioned by the member, I fail to understand how Mr Hide can now be against the bill. After all, he has just extolled the virtues of the Minister of Māori Affairs. There seems to me to be an apparent contradiction between Mr Hide’s presentation and his objection to the bill. Maybe that draws some notion of the confusion in your ranks. [Interruption] I prefer to say “confusion in your ranks”. We understand what is happening over here on the Government benches, as has come to the media. What is happening over there in the Opposition?

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know it is unusual to do this through a point of order, but the member on his feet has asked me a question. He did not quite understand why the ACT party objects to Part 1. I thought I had explained that in terms of natural justice. If Mr Speaker wants to point out that the member can yield the call and give me 2 minutes, I will make an explanation and answer his question.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is perfectly normal. It can be done, but it is not often done in the New Zealand Parliament.

That was quite a significant judgment there, Mr Speaker; I give you my congratulations.

In conclusion, therefore, I stand unreservedly as a Te Ātiawa member. If members are talking about natural justice, then they are talking about natural justice from a particular perspective. The design of this bill is about speeding up the process. It is about affording natural justice to the claimants, so there is a two-sided coin. Nō reira, i runga i ngā kōrero nei. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia oti pai tēnei taha.

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is the member just going to ask for an interpretation?

💬 Rodney Hide: Sure.

Having regard to his Ngāi Tahu ancestry and the difference in dialect, I assumed that that member fully understood what was going down. For the benefit of that speaker I will translate on my behalf, in the sense of drawing to a close. I think it has been a very good outcome, and I thank the select committee.

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I pointed out that the member could yield the call, and I notice that the member did not take the full allotment of his time. I just wanted to ask, given that he asked me two questions during his speech, whether he was yielding me the 2 minutes that remain of his time.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No.

💬 Rodney Hide: Is the member prepared to yield that? It is up to the member.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No. The member will be seated. The member has already sat down, and I now intend to call the next member.

💬 Rodney Hide: Oh, so he did not really want answers to the questions.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member will be seated.

The Greens are very pleased to support this bill, and I echo my colleagues in the Māori Affairs Committee in saying how relieved we are that the bill is before the House and will go through all its stages this week. The provisions in the bill relating to the Treaty of Waitangi Act are urgently needed for the effective management of claims through the tribunal. I will talk about that briefly in a moment, but let me first mention the provisions in Part 3 of the bill.

Part 3 allows for an increase in the number of fishing licences to Ngāti Tuwharetoa. Yesterday I received a number of letters from people who are concerned about that, many of whom have been very active in environmental restoration around Lake Taupo. They are concerned that the increase in licences will cause environmental problems, and I want to assure them that the increase in the number of licences from 50 to 200 will not have a massively detrimental effect on the overall fisheries in Lake Taupo or on the surrounding environments. The licences are issued under existing statutory rights under the Maori Land Amendment and Maori Land Claims Adjustment Act, which vested ownership of Lake Taupo in the Crown while providing, amongst other things, the right of Tuwharetoa to fish and catch, for its own use, indigenous fish in Lake Taupo waters. The number of licences for that right has not, as has been said, been changed since 1926 but general licences have increased considerably. The committee considered that the increase is long overdue, small though it is.

For the Greens, the most important part of the bill is the change to the Treaty of Waitangi Act. Those amendments validate changes in membership, either to replace or to substitute members during the course of tribunal hearings. Those changes are essential in order to ensure just outcomes from the tribunal. It is part of the process of natural justice, though, that only those who hear evidence should decide on it. Generally, if a judicial officer is unable to complete a hearing, the matter is reheard from the beginning. But for the tribunal, and particularly for the participants, that principle has to be weighed against a greater injustice, since claimants spend up to 10 years before a tribunal, and the membership of that tribunal has to change due to unforeseen circumstances. On balance, the injustice caused to the claimants by having to repeat their claims from the beginning is, frankly, too great to contemplate. It is an extraordinarily long and exhaustive process that exacts a huge toll on those involved. A number of longstanding claims are waiting for this bill to pass, so that they can be completed. The Wellington Tenths is one of them, but there are claims as well, such as Wai 262. We look forward to their eventual completion.

The select committee’s report notes a concern from the Greens that clause 5AC(2)(c), inserted by clause 5, gives the chairperson, subject to the protections in subclause (3), a broad discretion to replace a member. I do not imagine for one moment that that discretion is intended to be misused or will be misused, but I am concerned that in this case we are enacting legislation that does not expressly require the member to agree to being replaced. I realise that some members—although not the member for ACT—may consider that point a little pedantic, but I am solely concerned with the standing and reputation of the tribunal. As a semi-judicial body, I do not want it to be considered to have a lesser standing than any other similar body in this country. I am concerned that any deviations from the principles of natural justice and from general practice are confined, as much as is possible, to curing the mischief. However, that said, the Greens do support this bill and look forward to its speedy passage. Kia ora koutou.

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 Māori. 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 Māori grievances that member and his party have. Let us hear it again: “Resolution should be above natural justice.”

Māori 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 Māngai Pāho transfer from the Minister of Broadcasting to the Minister of Māori Affairs. Te Māngai Pāho 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 Māngai Pāho than the Minister of Māori 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 Māori 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.