Committees — Business of Select Committees

The point I was making when the House rose last Thursday was that the shame of this motion is that we have to debate it at all on the grounds that the Government does not trust its Māori members. The point I was making was that we already have committees that have been established—the Māori Affairs Committee, for example. It is quite capable of dealing with this sort of legislation. We have the Primary Production Committee, which is also quite capable of dealing with this sort of legislation. But we have to ask ourselves why the Government wants to set up a special committee and why it wants to put a guy like Russell Fairbrother in as the chairman.

💬 Edwin Perry: Who is he?

I think he is called Russell Fairbrother. He is from Napier, or somewhere. Why is the Government not sharing it with somebody who is actually involved and knows? Is it because the Government thinks it will give the wrong impression to a sector of our community? Is the Government saying that the Māori members of its caucus are not capable of sitting down and thinking these things through in an unbiased way, and ending up making a proper contribution to this Parliament and to the nation? If the Government does think that—and it is obvious to me that it does; it is not prepared to say the Māori members can have an unbiased view on this, and indeed it thinks that they will be biased and bipartisan and therefore are not capable of making a contribution—we have to ask ourselves why, then, the Government supports the retention of the Māori seats at all. Why is it that the Government is prepared to take the cake and try to eat it, as well?

The point that really needs to be thought about in this Parliament as we debate it, and thought about by the public, is whether in fact the Government is actually trying to mislead the public as to what it is endeavouring to do. I would suggest to the Parliament, particularly to the Labour Government—

💬 David Benson-Pope: Oh!

—and to the senior Government whip, the junior Government whip, and others—that doing what it is doing now is going to cost you at the next election, because the public will see through this sort of thing.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

I beg your pardon, Mr Speaker; not you, of course. The public will see through what the Government is trying to do, and it will count against it at the next election. I just say that this party on this side of the House knows that the Government is splintered over this. We know that the Government cannot control its Māori members. It is worried that if it puts this matter into the Māori Affairs Committee it will have an outcome it does not want. So what has the Government done? It has manoeuvred to put in place a special select committee to look after all this sort of special legislation that quite properly should be the domain of the Māori Affairs Committee or the Primary Production Committee.

It is just not good enough for this Government to say that it will set up a special committee and have it chaired by somebody who is an unknown. Quite honestly, Russell Fairbrother has no pedigree as far as dealing with these sorts of things is concerned. What is his background? Who knows him, actually, when we come to think about it? We will have to find out, I suppose, as this committee is set up—because the Government is bound to want to pass this motion and set the committee up. But I think it is a great shame that we have to be dealing with this at all tonight. It will be a slight on the Government.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to put firmly on the record that New Zealand First will be voting against this Government motion. I also want to put firmly on the record that New Zealand First will not be participating in this committee. We say that because there is one very simple question that we have for this Government, and one simple question that we have for Mr Donald, who wants to chip in on the sidelines here, and that is: what is wrong with the Māori Affairs Committee? I ask that again: what is wrong with the Māori Affairs Committee?

💬 Rod Donald: It does not have every party represented on it.

Well, whose choice was that? Which party did not want to be involved in Māori affairs? Was it the Greens? Well, how surprising!

💬 Rod Donald: We are on it.

Oh, they are on it. Then what is his problem? He is there. We have established procedures whereby any party that wishes to participate in a standing committee has a means by which it can do so.

💬 Rod Donald: But no votes.

Well, I am sure that if a motion were put at the Business Committee, that might be addressed. So I come back to the question: what is wrong with Mahara Okeroa as the chairman of the Māori Affairs Committee? Tell me, Mr Donald, what do the Greens have against him?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member will address the Chair.

I am answering the member’s questions.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, no, the member will address the Chair.

Well, I will ask you, Mr Speaker, what is wrong with Mahara Okeroa? Pray tell me. Why will Mr Donald not allow Mr Mahara Okeroa to chair this committee? I am waiting for an answer to that question, and I think the whole of Māoridom deserves an answer. What was it that was said by the one man who championed out there in the courts of this land, and gave excuses to, a murderer or a paedophile? He said that that man was excused for his offence because he had been colonised. Well, what is this act where Mr Fairbrother is now going to supersede the authority of Mr Mahara Okeroa and lead and chair this wonderful ad hoc committee on an issue so fundamentally important to many Māori people—the foreshore and seabed issue? What is the problem?

Some would say that fundamentally the Labour Party does not trust Māori. Some would say that it is all right for the Labour Government to enjoy the privilege of seven seats and a massive list vote, but one does not want to give those Māoris any say, eh! Margaret Wilson does not want to let those Māoris get in, does she? Look at this point. Not only does Māoridom entrust Labour with its seven seats, but it also gives them a massive list vote, and who comes sliding in on that? Well, there is the great irony. Michael Cullen and Margaret Wilson came sliding in on a massive Māori list vote—to do what? To put up this sort of rubbish—to stand in this House and tell Māori MPs and the whole of Māoridom that Mahara Okeroa is not up to it, they will not let him be involved in this, and are going to sideline him. That is the message out there.

I have a message for this Labour Government. The days are numbered. Māori might well give this Government another seven seats in the next election, but that will probably be because no one else is contesting them. But the list vote from Māori will not stay with Labour, because they are seeing the deceit right now. They are seeing the rejection, they are seeing the humiliation, and they are seeing their mana being trampled on with the dirt of the boots of Michael Cullen, Helen Clark, and Margaret Wilson. That is what they are seeing.

But it is nothing new, is it? Because Labour has been doing this for years. Look at the local government elections. Look at the number of safe seats that Labour holds that represent constituencies—[Interruption] I tell Mr Barker that it hurts. He comes whistling out when he gets hurt. I ask Mr Barker how many safe Labour seats that have predominantly Māori and Pacific Island constituents are held by Labour, Māori, general MPs? Hello! None. Not one—[Interruption] Name for me—[Interruption] That change occurred in the last election with Winnie Laban—

💬 Hon Chris Carter: Wairarapa.

Is Wairarapa a safe Labour seat? I do not think so. That is Keith Holyoake territory, and when they put confidence in the conservative vote it will disappear again. The point is trust. Consistently Labour has abused the Māori vote. Let those little Māoris go off and sit in a committee of their own, but do not give them any important work to do! Let those little Māoris stand in the Māori seats but do not let them stand in a safe Labour seat!

Take Christchurch East. Who should be in that seat? Not Lianne Dalziel! It should have been a Māori or a Pacific Island representative because that is what the make-up is. But here we are seeing once again classic paternalism, classic insult to Māoridom, classic abuse of the vote, and classic rejection of Māori as competent. Is this what this Government is saying: that Mahara Okeroa is not competent; that Labour’s own Māori MPs are not competent? Or is it saying that they cannot be trusted because there are some controversial issues in here that Mr Michael Cullen and Ms Margaret Wilson want to keep their fingers firmly around? They do not want their Labour Māori MPs having any say whatsoever.

Why is it that they are so sensitive about this? Well, look at the minutes that came out of that meeting with Mr Cullen on Thursday from the Te Ope Mana a Tai representation. Look at what is in here. They are saying that the Government has already made up its mind. They are saying that it is a deal signed and done. They are saying that all of the consultation in the select committee will be a waste of time, and it is predetermined and preordained by Helen Clark herself, and that is why it has been put in the hands of Mr Fairbrother—the man who will do Helen Clark’s bidding and Margaret Wilson’s bidding. Margaret Wilson will be satisfied, alongside Mr Cullen, all at the expense of the mana of the Māori MPs on the Labour benches.

I have a question for the Labour MPs. How much more humiliation are they going to take? How many more maraes are they going to go to, to hear the chant: “Hi ho, hi ho, it’s off to do Helen’s bidding we go.”? They are the people whose mana is being trampled. They are the people who have been told they cannot be trusted to deal with an important issue that faces this country. They are the people who have been sidelined. The question has to be: for how much longer will they tolerate this paternalism? For how much longer will they tolerate having their iwi so grossly insulted in this way? New Zealand First will be voting against the establishment of this committee, and will not be adding to the insult that Labour offers to Māori through this motion.

The Greens will be supporting this motion to establish a special select committee to look at the fisheries legislation. We accept that the Māori Affairs Committee is as appropriate a body as any to look at this legislation. As a member of that committee I have every confidence that it is perfectly capable of dealing with this issue, and dealing with it as effectively as it should be dealt with. This is, after all, an issue to do with the settlement and reparation of the extinguishment of Māori rights, and the restoration to Māori of some compensation for that extinguishment.

None the less, it is also true that the Primary Production Committee will have some interest in this bill, given that the bill concerns issues of fisheries for which the committee would have some expertise. But, in the end, the Greens accept that a special select committee for this purpose is a useful thing to have. It is a useful way of making sure that a select committee with representatives from all the political parties in this House has the opportunity to be part of the scrutiny of this legislation.

This bill is a landmark for this Parliament and for this country. It is one of the early Māori settlement deals, and has taken a very, very long time to come to the House in this form. There are some very major issues around it that need to be addressed and properly dealt with by a wide variety of political representation, particularly issues between the commercial aspects of this bill, community issues, and hapū, whānau, and tikanga issues.

As a potential member of the select committee, if it is established, I certainly look forward to participating with a wide variety of members from different backgrounds so that we can have a good hearing of the issues. I think that the people who come to that select committee and make submissions on the bill will appreciate that there will be people there with an enormous range of expertise. There is some significance in this Parliament establishing a special select committee to hear a bill that is so significant. The Greens will support this motion.

I rise for the ACT party to signify that we will oppose this notice of motion and move an amendment to it—the amendment being to omit all words after the reference to the United Future party. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that this special committee does not usurp the role that members on it must play in this House. This motion proposes that the committee can meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite the Standing Orders.

The Standing Orders are there for a purpose. They are there to try to ensure that select committees do not take away from the House its role as the debating chamber. People who want to do a diligent job and do what they can on a committee may fail to perform their duty in the House or be present when important matters they may be debating are at issue. We have to move this amendment so that the committee, while it undoubtedly will be set up—because the Government has obviously done a deal with the Green Party—

💬 Pita Paraone: Same as the GE moratorium!

Probably the same! When the committee is set up we will do our duty on it, but we believe that the House should be very, very cautious. Indeed, it should set itself against the suspensions of the Standing Orders that would mean it becomes a separate little chamber, and that those involved in it effectively have to drop out of the rest of their activities. Those who are involved on it may become a group equipped only to move around, and, from what we understand, to become almost the first stage of a roving commission, digging the Government out of its hole.

That is what this committee is for. The committee is set up because the Government does not want to give a proposal, not on the fisheries settlement but on the next one—the seabed and foreshore. The Government wants this committee to take the heat. In about 6 months’ time the Government wants to be able to say to the people of New Zealand: “Don’t look to us. It was Parliament that came to this weird conclusion.” The Government does not want to have on its hands any kind of clear recommendation or clear advice.

So although we will play our part, because as parliamentarians we believe we will have to when this committee is set up, we oppose it. We see it as a way of avoiding responsibility. We see it as a way of trying to duck the hardest issue this Government is facing at the moment. The Government wants to make sure that, if it can possibly achieve it, it can hang on to the reputation of its Māori members, who will deserve no reputation by the time this is over. Those members should insist the Government comes out with a very clear simple statement of principle. We should not condemn New Zealanders to a year of dissention and confusion. Those members will be hiding, hoping that this committee takes all responsibility and public attention away from them.

Although it is true one would have expected something like this to go to the Māori Affairs Committee, ACT is also concerned this is an acknowledgment that this House has started to treat the Māori Affairs Committee, by composition, in a way in which it treats nothing else. We do not have medical matters dealt with by committees comprising doctors. We do not have farming or agricultural matters dealt with by committees comprising only farmers; nor should New Zealanders expect the Māori Affairs Committee to get to the stage where it comprises only Māori, and where other members no longer feel that the committee can be trusted to deal with an issue that has the interests of Māori, and the interests of all other New Zealanders including Māori, at odds. That committee should be set up and chaired in a way that means we all have confidence that it is objective and approaches things from the perspective of what is best for New Zealand. This is an admission that the Government cannot trust that committee. It cannot trust that committee not to end up covering for its MPs in the event of the failure to settle that will come out of this. We cannot trust it to be objective, so we are setting this up.

I think that Mr Tu Wyllie put it very well this morning when he talked about the first task for this bill. I have not heard a better statement of what it should be about. The establishment of property rights is the primary task—the establishment of seabed and foreshore ownership in a way that is consistent with and respects the law that New Zealanders inherited when the Treaty of Waitangi was taken on by this country. That is in relation to article 2 concerning property rights. It is very, very straightforward. It should not be a big task, but the committee will need all the time the Government is trying to give it by the suspension of the Standing Orders, because the Government expects it to go about as a lightning rod, taking all the heat the Government should have taken for its failure to ensure the law was clear enough. The Court of Appeal should not have come out with its odd decision in the first place. When it did, New Zealanders should have known exactly what the response would be.

The warm-up task will be to look at the proposal from the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission for the settlement proceeds. That commission produced a bill. The Government has rewritten it using absolutely naive language. Just on a quick look through, I see things as primitive as references to company law terms. The Government has rewritten it, and now the Government wants this committee to try to dig it out of a hole, while at the same time asserting that the committee does not have an authority to modify the bill significantly, because it is part of a settlement.

ACT will not consider itself bound by that. ACT does not accept that that is a proper role for this Parliament—that is, the rubberstamping of treaty settlements. A settlement that was done 10 years ago has now been modified substantially, and abused to create a slush fund for Mr Tamihere and his urban mob. ACT will not consider that this bill is a matter of simple ratification. [Interruption] The lost tribe! One cannot settle a grievance or do justice by creating a fresh injustice—by taking away from people who were wronged and giving to people, many of whom have never been wronged; indeed, who helped the Crown in the wronging.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Government chief whip just referred to a parliamentary colleague as a shyster. I believe that is unparliamentary language and he should apologise.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Yes, the member will withdraw and apologise.

I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I referred to the whole party as a bunch of shysters.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, no. The member is now very close to being asked to leave. He will withdraw and apologise, again.

I withdraw and apologise.

I rise in support of the Government’s motion that a committee be established by this House to consider and report on such fisheries and other sea-related legislation as may be referred to it. The motion is well conceived. It is an opportunity for each of the parties represented in this House to be involved in considering the Māori fisheries legislation and the important issues of the foreshore and seabed, aquaculture, and marine reserves. The central issue, that of the foreshore and seabed, is potentially one of the most important matters that has come before our Parliament for many, many years. It has very important ramifications for the future harmony of our nation, and we need to sort out once and for all, hopefully, the very important and vexed question of who should own the foreshore and the seabed. It seems to United Future that it is quite a privilege for all the parties in this House to be asked to consider that important matter.

I found it difficult to follow the logic advanced by the previous speaker, Stephen Franks of the ACT party, whereby he seemed to be saying, yes, the issue was very, very important, but the committee was also a way in which the Government could escape responsibility. I would have thought that the task of the select committee, and indeed, the principle behind an MMP Parliament, is to allow all parties to have a say on such important matters, and United Future is one party that certainly welcomes the opportunity to do that. I make the point also that although it is not recognised very much by the House itself, or certainly by the media, one of United Future’s members is Māori. I refer to my colleague Bernie Ogilvy, who has very strong iwi connections. From that point of view, it is very important that our party has an opportunity to participate in these matters.

However, I do think that the Government should give very careful thought to the question of the chairmanship of this committee. We have been told several times in this debate—mainly by parties that are not in Government—that the chairman of this committee will be Russell Fairbrother. On the other hand, Russell Fairbrother himself seems to have scant knowledge of that reality, although I must say that when this motion was brought to the House on the last sitting day, Russell Fairbrother sat in for most of the debate, which seemed to indicate to me that he was taking an especially close interest in the issue. Whether or not the matter of the chairmanship is settled, I would appeal to the Government to give that very, very careful thought. I do agree with the sentiment that this will be a very important committee. We need to have an experienced chairperson with the requisite expertise.

With that reservation, I say we will be voting against the amendment proposed by Stephen Franks, but for the motion itself.

The National Party will not be supporting the original motion. Of course, we will support the amendment, because that makes it sensible. We will not support the original motion, because although National established special select committees in the past, there was a very clear reason for doing so. That reason was to relieve the workload on subject committees, or to consider legislation that did not itself specifically fit a particular select committee. When National was in Government we were most industrious, and all of our select committees had lots of work to do all the time. At the moment the minority Labour Government has very little work in front of the select committees, so there are lots of opportunities for other committees to pick up these particular types of bills.

Everyone knows that the bills we know of so far that are to go to this select committee are the foreshore and seabed legislation, and the Māori fisheries allocation legislation. I cannot think of any justification for the Māori fisheries allocation bill not to go to the Māori Affairs Committee. Those who are listening to this debate may wonder about the vested interest aspect of doing that. In 1989, a Labour Government passed legislation that allocated the fisheries, or part of the fisheries, in this country to Māori. In 1992, there was the Sealord settlement. What we are seeing with regard to this current bill is an agreement for Māori to allocate the fisheries among themselves. So there is no vested interest, other than perhaps that Māori do not trust the chairman, Mahara Okeroa, the member for Te Tai Tonga, on the basis that Ngāi Tahu has quite an interest in getting a sizeable chunk of the fishery. Perhaps that is so, but there can be no other reason for that bill not to go to the Māori Affairs Committee.

Then there is the issue of the foreshore and seabed. Why does that legislation not go to the Primary Production Committee? We know that matter will be tied into the aquaculture legislation that the Government has coming up later in the year, so it would be quite reasonable for that committee to look at that legislation. That committee could have been extended so that all parties in the House were represented on it if they chose to be. In any event, any member can attend any select committee, any time that a committee sits. So the membership of that committee cannot be the reason that the legislation is not to go to that committee.

We can then look at what the Government is planning by way of personnel on this proposed committee. Apparently, the chairman will be Russell Fairbrother. That opens up all sorts of other possibilities. Russell Fairbrother is a very talented lawyer; there is no question about that. Thousands of criminals in this country are going about their daily lives, free as birds, thanks to Russell Fairbrother. He is to chair this committee, and I think that is because he is one of only two members in the Labour Party caucus who do not get a salary over and above that of a back-bencher. But that situation is to be rectified by the creation of a special select committee, so that Russell Fairbrother can get the additional salary.

Everyone knows that the lunchtime conversation for the last 6 months has been about how Russell Fairbrother thinks that he may not come back to Parliament—how he may give up Parliament, how he is sick of Parliament, and how he is being wasted. We see him at the back of the House, asking such incisive questions of the Minister as “Have you seen any reports on X, Y, and Z?”. Of course, the Minister says “That is a good question.”, so Russell Fairbrother can sit down and feel that he has done a great day’s work. Obviously, the man has become frustrated and decided that perhaps he will not stay in Parliament. If he does not, that would open up the Napier seat to the onslaught of the right-of-centre parties, which inevitably would mean a change in the political ownership of that seat. So a panicked Helen Clark has asked Michael Cullen whether the Government can create a job for Russell Fairbrother. This evening we are seeing the House having to set up a special select committee, and underlying all that is, perhaps, a “retain the Napier seat” select committee.

I notice also that this select committee will consider and report to Parliament on “such fisheries”—and here it is—“and other sea-related legislation”. I have perused the very light Order Paper, and I could not see many sea-related pieces of legislation. When I racked my brains about the big issues of the day, it came to me that the biggest issue of the day for the current Government is the debacle over Auckland transport. Then, like a flash, I suddenly realised that this will be the committee that will hear the eastern motorway empowering bill, which will, of course, override the Resource Management Act and ride roughshod all over the people in Helen Clark’s electorate who are not very keen on the eastern corridor going through. That will all be done on the basis that since that motorway is going across a seaway, naturally it is a sea-related piece of legislation. So the terms of reference for the committee are well understood and well considered.

The problem with the sorts of special select committees that are set up on this basis is that their terms of reference are completely open. The previous National Government never set up a select committee with such wide terms of reference as this committee has. It is simply not appropriate to do so. Parliament already has 12 standing select committees, plus several others, that could do much of this work. It can be asked whether the fisheries allocation or the foreshore and seabed issue contains any aspect of compensation—and those issues may do so. Why, then, would that legislation not be sent to the Finance and Expenditure Committee? We know from our members on that committee that it meets about every second week—

💬 John Key: On a Wednesday.

It meets every second Wednesday, and it never sits past 11 a.m. Essentially, the chairman comes in, pours his coffee, eats his chocolate biscuits, dispatches the menial business of the committee—and off the members go. The reason is that not much is being referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee at present. So why would the Government not send the legislation to that committee? Well, the problem is that the chairman is an obscure MP from the South Island, who will remain nameless.

But essentially this motion comes back to the issue of trust. We are seeing the Government start to lose trust in its own members. It is losing trust in the Māori Affairs Committee, losing trust in the Primary Production Committee, losing trust in the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and losing faith that it can hold a seat like Napier without creating a new occupation—or a new salary band—for the chairman of this proposed special select committee, Russell Fairbrother. When one starts to stack up losses like that, one realises there is only one more loss to come—and 2005 cannot come soon enough for us.

I am pleased to support the motion.

I want to ask why we are having to consider this motion, when, clearly, there is an existing select committee that could deal with it. A number of earlier speakers have asked why these matters could not be dealt with by the Māori Affairs Committee, and I also ask that question.

The decision to create some sort of ad hoc, multiparty creation is simply a device to avoid embarrassing this Government. The Government’s attempts to wriggle off the hook, of its own making, will only create further embarrassment, and it is a slap in the face for the Māori Affairs Committee and, indeed, for the Māori Labour members of Government. What of the communities that those members represent—or are supposed to represent? I am talking about the communities of Te Tai Tokerau, Tamaki Makaurau, Waikato, Waiariki, Te Tai Hauāuru, Te Tai Tonga, and Ikaroa Rāwhiti. They are the people who put these members into Parliament to represent them. Why are they not being recognised in terms of this whole issue?

I want to ask a question about the chairmanship of this proposed committee. What is wrong with the member from Te Tai Tonga? Why has he not been charged with the responsibilities of chairing this new ad hoc committee? Why is it that when we talk about things Māori we talk about Māoris having vested interests and that we cannot actually trust them? Why is that? If we are going to say that Mr Mahara Okeroa’s workload is such that he cannot do this, then what about Mr Dave Hereora or Moana Mackey—the only two other Māori members in the Government who have not been given positions?

💬 Dail Jones: What about Tariana Turia?

Tariana Turia already has a whole lot of associate portfolios. I look across to the Government benches. Where are the Māori members? Are they too ashamed to be here to discuss these issues?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member cannot say that. The member cannot refer to the absence of members.

I ask you, Mr Speaker, why they are not here tonight. Is it because they are so ashamed, or have they been told to remain in their offices? I ask you, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No. The member cannot refer to the absence of members. If he does it again his speech will be terminated.

Should I ask why those members are not taking a call on this matter? I ask why they are not taking a call. Have they been instructed not to? This is a very important issue for Māoridom and, indeed, for New Zealand, yet they are not permitted to participate in this debate. I say that they need to be accountable to their electorate—to the people who put them in Parliament and who trusted them to represent their views in this House—yet they are not doing that. In particular, they are not doing that in this debate.

New Zealand First will not be supporting the motion to establish this committee. As part of our opposition to the establishment of that committee, New Zealand First will not be participating in it. We believe that this is an issue brought on by this Government, and its members need to address it themselves.

💬 Hon Rick Barker: What constituency does that member stand for?

The member on that side of the House may want to interject but it does not alter the fact that this matter is really a slap in the face to Māori and, in particular, to the Māori members.