Māori Purposes Bill

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs) Link to this

I move, That the Māori Purposes Bill be now read a first time.

E tika ake anō, ki te mihi ake anō i a tātau katoa mai i te motu. E mihi kau ana i a rātau mō tēnei kōrero.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) Link to this

Those were fine words from the Minister of Māori Affairs, Parekura Horomia, in support of the bill—his first bill before Parliament in some 6 years! He is not a bad Minister when he sticks tightly to the script, but when he sticks tightly to the script he does not tell the full story.

Parliament provides a number of ways in which various legislative measures can be handled. For example, a Statutes Amendment Bill can gather together minor corrections to legislation and be put through Parliament on the agreement of the parties. Omnibus bills are another means by which disparate parts of legislation that are on pretty much the same topic but are larger than just minor amendments—although not big enough for a bill—can be put through, with the agreement of the House. Because this country is bedevilled by so much legislation that relates to all things Māori, there is also provision for a Māori Purposes Bill. One would think that a Minister of Māori Affairs would want to use such a bill somewhat sparingly—perhaps to make those statutory amendments that might be expected, or perhaps to change a section or two here or there, as one might use an omnibus bill. But surely one would not use it to carry Labour’s showcase legislation—the 2008 close-off of claims to the Waitangi Tribunal.

We know that when this bill comes back to the House it will be split into several parts for voting purposes. One part will relate to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993, another to the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, and another to the Maori Fisheries Act 2004 that was passed by the House just recently. I signal now that National will go through the select committee process as a party. We will vote in favour of the changes to the Treaty of Waitangi Act, but we will be very reluctant to support those two other aspects of the bill.

I want to talk about those aspects. The first relates to changes to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act. Those are not inconsequential changes. They validate decisions made by the Chief Judge of the Māori Land Court—someone who had no right to make decisions about matters Māori, about matters that came before a court, and about matters that people would have thought were justly resolved by a duly appointed and warranted judge. Although the Minister might say it is only a few decisions, he misleads us, because this has been going on for years and years and years. We asked the department to tell us what those cases were, and all it has been able to come up with is that 83 decisions were made by Judge Norman F Smith over a period of 10 days in 2000 when he did not have a warrant. So here we are, 6 years later, and Parekura Horomia has come into the House and said that Parliament had better make legal what that man did 6 years ago.

What were those decisions? They were to do with the transfer of land ownership from Māori-held land to fee simple title, the appointment of successor trustees, the establishment of trusts—and, in one case, the judge had four goes over 10 days to establish one trust, so for the Government to say there was no conflict is utter rubbish—and the transfer of Māori land to general land. There were also numerous occasions when moneys owed to beneficiaries were paid out because of a direction from the judge. The people who received those benefits are not wealthy. We are being told that over and over; they even have a special tax rate because they do not have the wealth that is apparently available to other New Zealanders. So why would it be any surprise that there has been no appeal in any of those cases? Firstly, those people have not known about those decisions. All of those people who were affected in the 83 cases provided to us—and, in reality, we suspect there are more than 300 cases—do not know that the decision they have lived by for well over 10 years is not legally binding. That, apparently, is justice—that is how we treat Māori in this country. Would anybody else in the population accept that outcome if it had come from any court other than the Māori Land Court? I say to Parekura Horomia that that is a disgraceful way to treat people, and we will not be supporting that measure. We want to know a lot more about some of the cases—some 83 cases—that are so blandly described, but are so clearly controversial, in that list of 10 days’ work by Judge Norman F Smith. Members should think about that. The judge made 83 decisions in 10 days. That guy is a “super-judge”, but the problem is, of course, that he was not a judge, at all.

Now we come to Part 3, which really tickles me. It is do with the Maori Fisheries Act 2004, which was passed just a short time ago—about 18 months ago. When this legislation was passed, a number of members on this side of the House said that it was a mess, that there were problems all over it—

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Fisheries) Link to this

If we wanted an example of all intelligent thought disappearing, we have just heard it. I speak in support of the Māori Purposes Bill tabled by my colleague the Hon Parekura Horomia. The bill includes three technical amendments to two Acts that fall within my portfolio responsibility in fisheries. Those two Acts are the Maori Fisheries Act 2004 and the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004. Both of those Acts were major milestones in the recognition of the Treaty of Waitangi. Those Acts are important because they provide for Māori to participate fully in fisheries and marine farming in New Zealand. They make it possible for Māori to create new jobs and generate incomes in the regions where they live.

Two of the three proposed technical amendments are to the Maori Fisheries Act. Both amendments are technical in nature, though through their enactment the original policy intentions of the Maori Fisheries Act and the Fisheries Act 1996 will be able to be realised. The amendments are intended to ensure that the distribution of fisheries settlement benefits by Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd to iwi can proceed without impediment. The first amendment affects changes to quota shares held by Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd as a result of preferential allocation rights under the Fisheries Act 1996. The amendment allows the changes in those quota shares to be accurately reflected in eventual quota share allocations to individual iwi.

I think that it is worth giving a brief outline of preferential allocation rights to the House. Preferential allocation rights apply to those fish stocks that were introduced into the quota management system in 1986. At that time quota allocations were made based on catch history, and quota was allocated as a specific tonnage. If the combined catch history in a fish stock exceeded the proposed commercial catch limit for that stock, then all fishers’ provisional quota tonnage entitlements needed to be reduced. If a fisher did not choose cash compensation for that reduction in his or her provisional quota tonnage entitlement, the Fisheries Act 1983 included some special provisions. Those provisions ensured that if the total commercial catch limit for a stock was ever increased again, then the fisher would have a right to preferentially receive quota for the same tonnage he or she had had reduced, without compensation, in 1986—tonnage the fisher had essentially lost access to when the catch limit was cut. The ongoing right to reclaim back-up quota to the fisher’s original tonnage entitlement, based on catch history, is what is called a preferential allocation right under the current Fisheries Act 1996.

Today things are done differently. Owners hold a set number of quota shares, rather than a specific number of tonnes of quota. So an increase in the commercial catch limit for a fish stock means there will be changes in quota shareholdings if there are preferential allocation rights. If someone has preferential allocation rights, he or she receives more shares. Everyone else with quota in that stock has their shares reduced, although the total tonnage of annual catch entitlement produced by the new shareholdings is not actually reduced. That is because each share generates a higher tonnage of catch entitlement, due to the new higher catch limit.

Changes to quota shareholdings as a result of those preferential allocation rights are not dealt with effectively under the Maori Fisheries Act at the moment. Quota shares that are held by Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee are listed in a schedule to the Act. When the number of shares held changes because of a redistribution under preferential allocation rights, the schedule no longer accurately reflects the holdings of Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee. This bill provides a technical amendment to ensure that changes are reflected in the distribution of shares by Te Ohau Kai Moana Trustee. As a result, no one will be unfairly disadvantaged by the way preferential allocation rights work.

The second amendment to the Maori Fisheries Act is about iwi entitlement to harbour quota. For some stocks, there is commercial catch history in a particular harbour. The Maori Fisheries Act provides for a special allocation of part of the available settlement quota to iwi whose rohe abuts the harbour. However, harbour coastline cannot be measured in the same way that general coastline is measured, so the allocation of harbour quota is based on agreement. An omission from the Maori Fisheries Act means that the different procedure for harbour quota is not accurately reflected in the schedule to that Act. The amendment will accurately reflect the policy relating to harbour quota and ensure that allocation procedures are clearly set out.

The third technical amendment is to the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act of 2004. The settlement Act provides a full and final settlement of all Māori claims on commercial aquaculture arising on or after 21 September 1992. It provides Māori with 20 percent of any new marine farming space developed in the future. It also requires that the Crown provide Māori with the equivalent of 20 percent of any marine farming space approved since 21 September 1992. This existing marine farming space is referred to as pre-commencement space in the settlement Act. The technical amendment is to the definition of pre-commencement space. The technical amendment ensures that any space included in the definition of pre-commencement space is space that is actually used for aquacultural activities. Without the proposed clarification, there is concern that the space used for other types of activities could be captured by the current definition. Since the settlement is about coastal space used for aquaculture, it is obvious that the Act should capture only space used for aquaculture activities.

Māori economic development is New Zealand economic development, and aquaculture is a growing part of our economy. The Treaty settlements for fisheries and aquaculture were major milestones in making sure that Māori have their share of and involvement in the business of fishing and aquaculture. They provide a platform for investment to build productive businesses, based on one of New Zealand’s premier natural resources. The Government and the industry are committed to maximising the economic potential of our marine resources. In the 10 years to 2001, aquaculture exports increased by 230 percent. It is crucial to make sure that growth is sustainable.

The new aquaculture reforms have brought marine farming development under the Resource Management Act. Regional councils have the job of planning where development is possible. That requires iwi and the wider aquaculture sector to work together, alongside regional councils. That is a substantial and an important change. It is not without its difficulties, but we are trying hard to resolve those. It has taken time for both councils and the industry to adjust to change and to work through the new requirements. That is true, but one would expect that.

Central government is committed to playing its role. Officials from the Ministry for the Environment, the Ministry ofthe Department of Conservation, New Zealand Trade and Enterprise, and regional councils and the industry are working together constructively. They are providing practical help to develop some initial aquacultural management areas, and in the next stage the implementation team will help councils to progress their aquaculture planning into the development of aquacultural management areas. In particular, four regional councils—Northland, Auckland, Waikato, and the Bay of Plenty—have been identified as priorities for assistance. The implementation team is working with those four councils to identify barriers to aquacultural development and ways to overcome them. Māori are central to all of those elements of growth, and I welcome the opportunity that that offers for Māori and for New Zealand.

The Maori Fisheries Act 2004 and the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004 are key pieces of legislation in ensuring that Māori have the assets they need in order to take their place in the circle of economic development success. We need that legislation to operate in the way that was intended, so it can provide a fair and an equitable distribution of assets. The three technical amendments to the settlement legislation contained in the Māori Purposes Bill before the House tonight will help to ensure that happens. I commend the bill to the House, and to the Māori Affairs Committee for consideration.

Hon TAU HENARE (National) Link to this

Have we ever heard a more patronising speech than the one from Jim Anderton? He came down to the House. He has never spoken on anything Māori in the House before but he came down to the House because he feels he has a responsibility to say a few words to the natives of the land, to say to them: “You know, you’re part of the economic circle. We want you to do this, that, and the other thing.” He will now go back to his office and feel really great that for once in his life—[ Interruption] There he goes, back to the office, feeling great about his contribution to the indigenous people of this nation. I say, on behalf of all Māori, thank you, thank you, thank you bwana. But I come back to the point of the bill. If being patronising was a crime, then Mr Jim Anderton would certainly be serving a long time in prison.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First) Link to this

Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Tēnā tātou o te Whare nei. E tika ana kia tīmata mai tēnei wāhanga i hōmai ki a au i roto wā tātou reo rangatira nā te mea, he kaupapa Māori tēnei nā reira, e tika ana kia whakatakoto mai waku whakaaro i roto wā tātou reo rangatira ahakoa nō hea te tangata. Engari, ka rongo mai te iwi whānui, ā, kei te ora tonu tā tātou reo.

[Greetings to you, Mr Speaker. Greetings to us of this House. It is fitting indeed that this part given to me should begin in our native tongue, because this is a Māori matter and therefore it is an appropriate way for me to express my thoughts, in our chiefly dialects, regardless of where the person is from. But when the general public hear, ah, our language is alive still.]

I preface my contribution to this debate by acknowledging everyone in the House in the Māori language, given that this is a bill that affects Māori. It was introduced by the Minister of Māori Affairs, and therefore it is only proper that I should say a few words in my mother tongue, irrespective of which tribe I belong to—there was some comment from the sideline that I needed to make sure that my language was correct, particularly that of my tribe.

I stand on behalf of New Zealand First to say that we will support this bill going to a select committee. The system describes the bill as an omnibus bill. The bill amends the following four Acts: Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993, the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, the Maori Fisheries Act 2004, and the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004.

I will just make comment about Te Ture Whenua Maori Act and the amendments proposed to it. One of the amendments is to increase the number of judges of the Māori Land Court from eight to 14. I do not know whether the previous speaker got School Certificate, but I went to Mōtatau Māori District High School, and those figures suggest to me that the increase in the number of judges is six and not seven. One thing the bill does not say—and it will probably be of significance when the time comes for the appointment of extra judges to the Māori Land Court to be considered—is whether the increase in numbers should come from amongst Māori alone. New Zealand First is of the view that, whoever makes up the pool for the number of new judges to be appointed to the Māori Land Court, the best should be appointed—not by ethnicity but by legal intellect. I hope that that point may be addressed during the select committee process.

The previous speaker questioned the need for extra judges. If he refers to two of the Acts this bill amends—the Maori Fisheries Act and the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act—he will see that when those pieces of legislation were created and passed by this House a lot of responsibilities were passed to the Māori Land Court. During the select committee deliberation on those two pieces of legislation the bureaucracy was often asked whether in fact the Māori Land Court had the capacity to deal with this extra workload. While we were assured that it had, it is obvious from the introduction of this particular bill that the Māori Land Court clearly did not have the capacity at the time. So I believe that this bill addresses that issue.

The bill itself addresses part of the confidence and supply agreement that New Zealand First has with the Labour-led Government. In respect of the Treaty it ensures that the Treaty settlements process is expedited. This bill proposes that a time line be set, and we will certainly support that time line. While we might think that it should be extended a bit further, we support the setting of a time frame for historical claims—and a lot of people do not have a clear appreciation that the time frame relates to historical claims. What is more pleasing about this bill is that it actually defines what are “historical claims”. So for those of Māori kith and kin who are contemplating making claims, it is quite clear what this bill is all about.

The other issue is the question of delegation to the Deputy Chief Judge. It seems to me quite clear that the Chief Judge has a lot of work on his hands and is therefore required to seek the insertion of this measure into the bill to ensure that he is able to carry out his work and share some of his workload with his deputy. For New Zealand First, that gives credence to our desire to see the positions of Chief Judge of the Māori Land Court and Chairman of the Waitangi Tribunal separated. While the bill does not go so far as to suggest that, I signal to the House that it provides some ground for New Zealand First to submit a Supplementary Order Paper proposing a separation of those two positions, currently held by one person, the Chief Judge of the Māori Land Court.

This bill also provides legal coverage for decisions made by the Deputy Chief Judge back in the 1990s in relation to orders he made when everyone thought that his warrant to be Deputy Chief Judge was still active—and quite clearly it was not. While we have heard Opposition speakers questioning that whole issue, I wonder whether in fact an approach has been made to any of the whānau, hapū, or iwi who have been affected by those orders made by the Deputy Chief Judge at the time. If none has, then I suggest that a lot of the rhetoric we have heard tonight is just that—rhetoric.

In reference to the amendments to the Treaty of Waitangi Act, I have commented that we certainly support—and it is part of our policy and part of our agreement with the Government—the setting of a time frame. I say again that this does not refer to contemporary claims. The emphasis is on the lodging of the claim, not on the settlement. I think that a lot of our people out there do not have a clear appreciation of just what this has meant. We are talking about the lodging of claims and not the settlement, because we in New Zealand First believe it is important that the durability of claims not be compromised for bureaucratic expediency. Therefore we support the limitation to just the lodging of claims. Both the Maori Fisheries Act and the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act called for extra input from the Māori Land Court. Therefore it is important that the increase in the number of judges be supported by this House. As the Minister of Fisheries mentioned, Māori economic development is New Zealand economic development. If these two provisions can help make things a little clearer for us and for New Zealand, then they ought to be supported. New Zealand First will certainly support this bill going to the select committee.

METIRIA TUREI (Green) Link to this

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. The Green Party is opposing this bill. The bill raises a whole lot of issues, and we will deal with a number of them later on, in the select committee and at the Committee stage. But the most important one for the Green Party is, of course, the closing date for the lodging of claims. This was an election promise Labour made—one of the three main election promises it made before the 2005 election. It was a policy that was developed in direct response to the very racist comments and positioning of the National Party.

Effectively, Labour was trying hard to scrabble back some of what it considered to be lost votes—what is often termed the redneck vote—that had gone to National because of things National had been saying. So Labour put itself in the position of advocating for a closing date and made it a major election promise. Now Labour is stuck with that, even though it knows, as we all do, that a closing date for historical claims is fundamentally and seriously unjust in a process that is supposed to be about providing just redress to victims of historical wrongs—very serious wrongs: property loss, loss of mana, imprisonment, murder, and rape. That is what this process is supposed to be dealing with justly and fairly.

The fact is the Treaty settlement process is a complete farce and provides no kind of just redress at all. It is another process similar to the processes set up 100 or 80 years ago to try to find ways to keep Māori under control so they would stop complaining about the loss of property—their loss of te rangatiratanga, actually—by providing them with some kind of redress, some kind of financial compensation, and hoping that they would then be quiet for a while, which, of course, will never work. The closing date is set down as 1 September 2008—just a little over 2 years from now. The bill defines historical Treaty claims as those relating to events occurring before 21 September 1992.

I can see why the public—and even people here in this House—do not understand why the Māori Purposes Bill is such stupid, terrible, and unjust legislation. For the Green Party, part of the reason it is unjust is that it is based on the Office of Treaty Settlements policy around large natural groupings. This large natural grouping process forces iwi and hapū to gather together their Wai claims and negotiate directly with the Office of Treaty Settlements, using just a few people to negotiate very large claims for very large areas and very large numbers of people.

The process itself picks winners. It identifies specific individuals the Government is prepared to negotiate with. They are the ones who effectively decide, because the hapū are stuck in what has been described as a duress of poverty. If a hapū is without resources, and there is a process for trying to claim some of those back in some form, and there are serious needs in the community that need to be met, and this is the only way to meet them, then there are very few choices. That means the negotiators on the Government side—the Office of Treaty Settlements—have a lot of control over whom they negotiate with and how. It is up to the Office of Treaty Settlements negotiators to decide how they negotiate.

The Office of Treaty Settlements collects groups of Wai numbers. So when people make a claim to the Waitangi Tribunal, that claim gets a Wai number; and is in process. The large natural grouping policy gathers together large quantities of these Wai numbers and then attempts to negotiate and settle all of them at once. But the Office of Treaty Settlements makes those decisions. It has set up a process that looks fair, but iwi have said they have no choice but to include Wai numbers and particular claims into their large natural groupings process, and then their negotiations, and they may not want to.

They know why it is wrong—why people should not be forced to settle their Wai claims without their consent. Māori know why it is wrong, but the Office of Treaty Settlements will refuse to deal with people unless they do it, and what choice do people have? In the end, it leaves iwi and hapū—the negotiators of the claim—to have to cajole these other Wai claimants into the process. It leaves them with the mess to clean up. The Office of Treaty Settlements says that these are internal issues and it is up to Māori themselves to sort them out. But it is because the Office of Treaty Settlements will not negotiate with people unless they include everybody that they are then left with the responsibility of having to include everybody.

It cannot work; it does not work that way. People do not want to be included. So iwi and hapū are left trying to fight with their own whānau. They are separated out from their own whānau and huge divisions are created because there is no choice. Negotiators of the Office of Treaty Settlements leave iwi and hapū to do its dirty work. It is a revolting and disgusting process.

My first real experience of this at a practical level was in this House during the Ngāti Ruanui settlement. I had people coming to me from Tangahoe and Pakakohi who had Wai claims that they did not want settled in the Ngāti Ruanui settlement. Ngāti Ruanui was the settlement around Taranaki, so it was one of the Taranaki Wai claims. A very serious issue was being settled there; it was the first, I think, of the Taranaki ones. Tangahoe and Pakakohi people, and others involved in that settlement, begged us not to support that settlement. They did not want to have their claim settled; they did not want their property, their lands, and their resources going into the hands of a mandated organisation they did not support and did not trust. But they had no choice. There was nothing they could do about it. Their lands and resources, their mana, were put in the hands of others and they could do nothing about it, because the Office of Treaty Settlements and the process—which previous Governments set up and this Government maintains—strip them of their power. That is what this process does.

A deadline that requires people to be engaged and to identify themselves with a Wai claim by 2008, when they have so few resources and so little support, forces them to put themselves on the line and put themselves at serious risk of having their claims negotiated without their consent and beyond their ability to do a good job of the negotiations, and get back those resources and that mana that was stolen from them.

This is about the duress of poverty. This is about stripping Māori and hapū and iwi of the vestiges of control that they have, by forcing them into a process over which they have no control. Claimants tell of this if they are asked the right question but, frankly, very few people in this House ever ask that question because they do not want to know. What people want is an easy process. People in this House—the Government, National, New Zealand First even, if it supports this bill—want an easy process where they do not have to deal with the hard and dirty facts that Māori, every time a settlement happens, are being stripped of even more of their rangatiratanga that they are fighting to retain. We sit here and we allow this to happen over and over again. Hapū are being punished, not rewarded, by this process.

It is absolutely atrocious to me that Government members—and particularly the Māori members on the Government side—have not even bothered to consult with people. The whole process was never properly consulted about; it was developed over 4 years and then taken out. There was widespread opposition to it then. There continues to be widespread opposition. The only reason hapū get involved is because they have no choice. Then a deadline is set where no one has even bothered to ask those victims for whom this process is supposed to provide redress, whether a deadline is appropriate for them. The Government has set a target. It wants everything settled by 2020. A target for them is fine; but Māori have a deadline imposed, because in the end it has nothing to do with providing justice or redress.

In the end this legislation is about finding an easy way to get out of taking responsibility for the fact we live in a country whose Treaty is daily trampled upon, and that we treat the indigenous people of this country like they are rubbish—that we will steal their properties from them even in the 21st century. We write apologies to coastal hapū in the settlements, then steal their foreshore and seabed from under them. The injustice continues in this country. This ridiculous legislation and the cut-off closing date for it is just a perpetuation of it. The Green Party will have no bar of it.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) Link to this

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker, tēnā tātou katoa. In looking at the Māori Purposes Bill tonight, I have reflected on the words of the late Martin Luther King, who said: “All progress is precarious, and the solution of one problem brings us face to face with another problem.” I reckon that gentleman knew what he was talking about. Parts of this omnibus Māori Purposes Bill are indeed about making progress. The Māori Party is very supportive of the positive changes made to the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act in increasing the number of Māori Land Court judges from eight to 14. It seems that the increased workload for the Māori Land Court has rapidly exceeded the capacity of the court’s judges.

We are pleased that the statutory cap will be permanently lifted. But such progress has a precarious status. We question the restraints evident for judges working in the Māori Land Court who yet are not able to also work in the District Courts. We believe that appointment to the Māori Land Court should also mean the possibility of an appointment to the District Court.

The peculiar nature of an omnibus bill is often characterised as being wash-up legislation, bringing together loose ends into one big boil-up. The Māori Party remains cautious about this sort of tactic. Changes proposed to the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 are examples of why we are cautious. Māori Purposes Bills have often been used to sort out anomalies in the vexed area of Treaty settlements. In looking at this 2006 version, I think it is always helpful to get a steer from our past.

I was interested to find that over 50 years ago the Maori Purposes Act in 1954 legislation recorded the settlement of a longstanding claim against the Crown by the Ngāti Whakaue tribal nation of Rotorua, in connection with the Pukeroa-Oruawhata block upon which the town of Rotorua now stands. This was effected by the payment of compensation of £16,500—the amount recommended by a royal commission in 1948. It is always interesting to look back in history and then to again think of the current legislation in front of the House. Right at this very moment, members of the Pukeroa-Oruawhata Trust and Ngāti Whaoa are working through the complex process required to achieve final resolution of their Treaty grievances.

The Pukeroa-Oruawhata Trust, on behalf of Ngāti Whakaue, is seeking settlement of the gifted lands issue, seeking meetings with the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, and seeking priority to be assigned to resolution of their grievances. As part of the trust’s concerns, it has asked how it can be acceptable that almost 13 years after its assigning of the deed of settlement, resolution of whether the Rotorua golf course land is surplus is still outstanding. It makes one wonder how effective these retrospective wash-up Māori Purposes Bills can be if the 1954 Māori purposes legislation is still being revisited some 50 years later.

The key political hot issue of specifying a closing date for submitting historical Treaty claims to the Waitangi Tribunal is a vitally important one within this bill. It is an issue on which the nation seeks finality, the nation seeks progress. But a pre-set time frame for the Treaty settlement process also stands as a highly precarious issue for debate. Ever since the settlement process began, claimants and lawyers have been expressing grave concerns about the process itself—the terms of settlement, the amount set aside for settlement, and the agency charged with managing settlements.

Issues of timeliness, of commitment to settlement resolution, are absolutely central to this. The bill proposes that any claims lodged after 1 September 2008 cannot include any historical Treaty claim or be amended to include any historical Treaty claim. The critical issues we will be asking about this legislation include what the justification is for setting 21 September 1992 as the date to define historical Treaty claims, and for setting 1 September 2008 as the final date to submit historical Treaty claims, and how whānau, hapū, and iwi have been involved in advising on the suitability of this, or any other, date for a time frame. Those are the questions that are important as part of this debate.

The issue of timing is the absolute crunch issue of the Treaty settlement process. The ongoing crisis of fatigue and overload that so many of our claimants experience in putting their stories before the tribunal must be acknowledged. As uri of Ngāti Kahungunu, Whanganui, Ngāpuhi, and my own of Te Arawa, we of the Māori Party know painfully, acutely, of too many of our loved elders who have carried the grief of these stories to their graves. We know also that there is tremendous richness available in the healing that can result through claimant groups being able to tell their own stories of those of their tūpuna. The very telling of their truths—much like in the truth and reconciliation hearings of other lands—provides a vehicle by which suffering can be heard, and healing can emerge.

But this all takes time—time that cannot be sped up just by the arbitrary selection of a date from the calendar. The process can be effective only if all parties agree to a negotiation framework upfront. Treaty settlements are supposed to be about settling grievances that have arisen from Treaty breaches; yet, at the moment, the Office of Treaty Settlements controls the outcome and the process—on Crown terms. The real value of retrospective provisions being introduced in a Māori Purposes Bill should, I would have thought, have put resourcing into improving the settlement from a Māori perspective. The enhancements that could have been useful would have been ensuring that the process of dealing with Māori claimants was dealt with in a fair and transparent way. As part of this, the Waitangi Tribunal must be resourced so that it can deal with claims more speedily.

The tribunal hearings are often long and costly affairs. The current precarious policy position of Treaty settlements is that because of the lengthy nature of tribunal hearings, and the fact that their rulings have no value, claimant groups are being pressured into direct negotiations with the Crown. The conclusions of the chairperson of the Waitangi Tribunal, Chief Judge Joe Williams, in December last year, regarding the settlement of Treaty claims, provide a particularly useful context in which to view this Māori Purposes Bill. The statement advised that faster progress in achieving resolution of claims would depend on a much higher degree of Crown-claimant cooperation.

Judge Williams said: “It would involve a willingness by the Crown to engage constructively in tribunal inquiries, and even review its practice of contesting the claimants’ positions on every issue.” If the Māori Purposes Bill is really to make progress, it must reflect far more opportunity for supporting claimant groups than it does at present.

Finally, I want just to refer to the amendments proposed for the Maori Fisheries Act 2004. The Māori Party has questions on the application to the quota share held by Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd. We wonder why the rights regime under section 28N is being proposed for inclusion in the Māori Fisheries Act 2004, some 2 years after its passage. The bill, as it is currently drafted, is thin on detail. It fails to describe the amount of quota shares that iwi quota owners have been unable to receive due to the current wording of the Māori Fisheries Act 2004, and what this translates to in dollar terms. We are also unable to gauge the projected loss if the Act remains unchanged.

Yet another host of questions emerge when one looks at the Māori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004. For example, we wonder what the anticipated risks are to iwi, including development projects and inter-iwi relationships, from the decrease anticipated in this Act.

In closing, I say that the Māori Party is left wondering why the Minister of Māori Affairs has been called on to host a wash-up bill to cram all of this legislation together outside his key portfolio, rather than, say, the Minister of Justice, and the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. We wonder whether it has anything to do with the fact that the only select committee where the Government has much-needed numbers is the Māori Affairs Committee. We will allow this bill to go through tonight to its first reading to allow hapū and iwi to have a say, but we cannot help but think there is something not quite right here, and we will be watching it at every turn as it progresses. Kia ora tātou.

JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) Link to this

I rise on behalf of United Future to speak to the first reading of the Māori Purposes Bill, which appears to attract as many questions as it seeks to answer. We acknowledge the fact that there are some questions we would like to see answered in order to secure our support beyond the first reading, but we are happy for the discussion to be had and for submissions to be made.

The bill, we note, seeks to amend four Acts of Parliament. It is interesting that the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 is to be amended to increase the cap on the maximum number of permanent Māori Land Court judges from eight to 14. A lot of people speaking to this bill tonight have talked about an expectation that six more judges would be added immediately. However, the question raised in my mind was that there is the potential for another six, but I guess they could be added as they were needed. So I would like to hear that area quantified a little more as to whether the intention is to appoint six new judges immediately or whether we intend to do that on some sort of incremental basis.

The second issue is around the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, and I suspect that is the most controversial issue this amendment bill seeks to address. The bill intends to set 1 September 2008 as the closing date for submitting historical Treaty claims to the Waitangi Tribunal. This move poses a lot of questions. First of all, why that date? Is it anticipated to be before the next election, which means we might have a political agenda here, or is it because we believe realistically that outstanding claims can be lodged successfully by that date? If the latter is the case, the question is whether the Government intends to further resource the issue of Treaty claims so that those claims can be lodged in a timely way.

I believe that there is a real need to consider the claims in a timely way, and I have concerns about some of the dates bandied around this place, as they would mean that many iwi and hapū would be waiting a very long time and the number of kaumātua who would pass on without seeing a settlement would grow steadily year by year. However, I also agree that rushing the process in a way that is unhelpful to that process would be equally as devastating.

I have a concern that the Treaty currently in New Zealand society is coloured a little by the historical grievance process, which makes it difficult for a lot of New Zealanders to consider the Treaty in terms of it having any current or future applications. I think that issue needs to be addressed in the future, certainly in terms of constitutional thinking. It concerns me that sometimes we are captured by just one part of the Treaty’s application, which is its historical grievance process.

There are two other issues, regarding the Maori Fisheries Act and the fourth amendment to the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act of 2004, about which I would like a lot more information to help me get my head around them. Certainly the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act appropriates for Māori some exciting developments in the area of marine farming and technology, and Māori rightly want to continue to be proactively included as that area develops.

I recently had the opportunity—and it was a fantastic opportunity—to attend a Māori business development hui in Hamilton. I was really encouraged to see the competence and the level of interest shown by key stakeholder groups and key people within Māoridom who want to see Māori business interests progress extensively. They talked very openly. I appreciated their raw honesty at that hui about the challenges they are facing regarding governance and management issues. I found that there was no pretending about the kinds of ways they will have to move and change, and even the possible challenges to tikanga that will need to happen for those issues to be advanced. I was impressed with everything I saw and heard.

When even in this last week we have been talking about how Māori can be overrepresented in the negative social indicators in this country, it was encouraging to sit in a very different environment and hear about some of the very positive things that are happening. There is not just a small dot at the end of the tunnel for Māori, there is a huge glaring light of potential and success. It is already happening and we need to celebrate that. I will be interested to see how that potential is represented through the proposed amendments in this bill.

One of the interesting things I want to alert people to as I conclude this first reading speech is in regard to the controversial area of setting a date by which Treaty settlements need to be lodged. I picked up a very interesting thing in a Cabinet paper on this matter. The paper talked about the fact that for this move to be successful, firstly, it would need to have a targeted communication strategy to make sure that the goal could be reached. But the other thing I thought was even more interesting was that there was an acknowledgment—I am not even quite sure what this means, but I want to read it to members—that it was possible that Māori could settle their claims with the Crown through the direct negotiation process without a registered claim, as there is no statutory constraint on who the Crown may choose to negotiate with.

I think that means that, even if we close the process somehow on 1 September 2008, somehow there will still be opportunities for new claims to be lodged in an unofficial capacity with the Crown, if the Crown so chooses to negotiate—which is kind of an interesting conundrum. I would be very interested to see what submissions are made in that regard to the Māori Affairs Committee. United Future does not have representation on the Māori Affairs Committee, so we will be reliant on hearing back from those on the committee and having a chance to find out what submitters say. We are very happy at this stage to support the first reading.

PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) Link to this

I take this opportunity to address the House on this very important Māori Purposes Bill. It is important because three Ministers are involved—the Minister of Justice, the Minister ofand, of course, the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. This evening they sent out their messenger, the Minister of Māori Affairs, with his script as to what he was to put to the House tonight on the range of issues that this bill addresses. I was very interested in Mr Flavell’s articulation of how he foresaw events unfolding with this bill, because the issues addressed are very wide ranging. The Minister of Māori Affairs—the messenger boy for the Minister of Justice, the Minister ofand the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations—came into the House tonight and told us that this bill amends four statutes. It amends not just one statute, not just two statutes, but four statutes. He said that the bill will go to the Māori Affairs Committee and be dealt with there. That is the only committee, out of the committees that deal with justice,and treaty negotiations, that has a Government majority.

The four statutes to be amended include Te Ture Whenua Maori Act of 1993. The number of judges in the Māori Land Court is to be raised from eight to 14. I acknowledge what Judy Turner says—that the number may not be raised by six to 14 immediately—but I think most listeners and most members of this House will appreciate that when the bureaucracy, whether it is the judicial bureaucracy or anything else, is given a cheque or a resource, it is used to the fullest extent. I ask only that in this case when it is used to the fullest extent, we see efficiency, due consideration given to claims, and so forth.

Further, in relation to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, we see a retrospective validation of decisions made by a Deputy Chief Judge that were made without a valid judicial warrant. That is of huge concern to us, simply because the Deputy Chief Judge has issued hundreds of judicial orders without proper jurisdiction—approximately 300 from December 1999 to March 2004 alone. The practice dates back to the 1980s. The Deputy Chief Judge then asked Judge Norman Smith to serve as a temporary judge, without a valid judicial warrant empowering him to do so. In other words, the issue here is that no valid judicial warrant was present when those decisions were made.

Even in a simple situation whereby someone who purports to be a justice of the peace receives and witnesses a signature or declaration and that goes forward, that declaration is effectively null and void. We see much more serious and far-reaching matters here, where a Deputy Chief Judge actually passed on responsibility to a temporary judge who had no jurisdiction or warrant, and he made decisions on far-reaching and serious matters. This Minister—“the messenger for Māori Affairs”—comes to the House tonight to ask us to say that is OK. Well, National says it is not OK. We are willing to send this bill to a select committee, but we will be digging deep and looking at the situations where no warrant was present when decisions were made. We will be asking what each of the decisions was, how far-reaching the decisions were, and what the parties affected by the decisions think of this bill.

The third statute to be amended by this Māori Purposes Bill is the Maori Fisheries Act of 2004. The processes are clarified for the allocation of fisheries assets. The fourth statute is the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act of 2004, and the amendment clarifies the processes for the allocation of aquaculture assets.

Interestingly, in relation to the second statute to be amended, the Treaty of Waitangi Act, the Government is looking at saying that claims submitted before 1 September 2008 can be amended in any way after that date—there is to be no certainty. On one hand the Government is saying that all historical claims under the Treaty of Waitangi must be submitted before 2008. So it has done a bit of a land grab there—a land grab for National policy, because we have basically said for the last 3 years, and certainly said leading up to the last election, that enough was enough. Māori have enough history, with a good 100 years and more since European settlement, to understand the issues, the injustices that were done—and, clearly, there were a fair few of those—and what the traditions, written and oral, are. Surely they know what the historical claims are, in substance. They can articulate the particulars of them, and they can present them to the judiciary with a fair degree of knowledge and detail. Surely Māori can do that. Well, the Government is giving them until 2008 to do so. For us, that is probably not soon enough to end that process, but we will support that part of the bill.

But on the other hand here is the flick in the tail, the twist: the Labour Government is not satisfied with that. It says here that yes, all Treaty claims must be lodged by 1 September 2008, but that they can be amended in any way after that date. So Parekura Horomia’s voters could go to him a couple of months before the election and say they know he needs their vote, and they would like their claim to be amended. It could be like one of those Michael Cullen dinner parties with Air New Zealand, where a deal is done and no one is any the wiser. So I say of Parekura Horomia—nod, nod, wink, wink; say no more—that when we see a Treaty claim that in itself may dislodge other Māori claimants in the same area, he will let that go through. That simply says to Māori that the Government will fiddle around with the process. They will not have any certainty. More and more the clamps will go on, and there will be less and less justice.

The Labour Government also says that it will aim to settle all claims by 2020. I do not know what that says about the process. I think it is acceptable that claims are put forward before the date in the legislation—by 2008. As for the time frame for claims to be resolved—Labour is saying they are to be resolved by 2020—I will be interested to hear at the select committee what submitters on the bill say about that.

The fourth statute that is to be amended is the one that interests me the most, because I was here in the House when the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act was passed. Parekura Horomia and other Ministers tossed around the figure of 20 percent of new aquaculture space being set aside for Māori, but people will remember that that was just a quid pro quo for Māori silence—Māori caucus silence in the Labour Party—over the seabed and foreshore issue. Michael Cullen and Helen Clark did not want Parekura Horomia to get all upset about the foreshore and seabed, so they went to him was a quid pro quo deal, saying they would give Māori 20 percent of the aquaculture space if he would just shut up. So the Minister of Māori Affairs, Labour’s whipping boy, went back to his Māori caucus colleagues and told them to keep things down, because there was a quid pro quo deal. He told them Māori would get 20 percent of aquaculture space if they just shut up about the seabed and foreshore. That was the deal that was done—a dirty deal, done dirt cheap—under the noses of Māori.

Now we see no new aquaculture space being developed. Māori, therefore, are not getting 20 percent of the space, because they cannot get 20 percent of nothing. They were to get 20 percent of new aquaculture space, but there is no new aquaculture space. Māori are not getting 20 percent of anything; they are not seeing anything from that dirty deal, done dirt cheap. They saw nothing in the seabed and foreshore legislation, and here the aquaculture legislation is back before this House and soon to be back before the select committee. The Māori Purposes Bill will deal with the aquaculture issue that was passed in legislation less than 18 months ago, so that is appalling legislation.

We support this bill going to the select committee. It will receive the fullest scrutiny by National, and we will add balance to the debate on this legislation.

DAVE HEREORA (Labour) Link to this

I take the opportunity to take a brief call to speak in support of the Māori Purposes Bill tabled by my colleague the Minister of Māori Affairs, the Hon Parekura Horomia. As chairman of the Māori Affairs Committee, I look forward to receiving this bill, and to the opportunity for that select committee to review it and to report back to the House.

The Standing Orders make it clear that a Māori Purposes bill is a bill that amends one or more Acts relating to Māori affairs, or deals with authorisations, transfers, and validations in respect of Māori land and property. This bill certainly does that. The Māori Purposes Bill 2006 that has been tabled provides for amendments to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993, the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, the Maori Fisheries Act 2004, and the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004. From my reading of the bill, I will comment on each of the amendments.

Firstly, in relation to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, and particularly those amendments that affect the Māori Land Court, this bill will mean that Māori will have improved access to justice as provided by that court. Amendments include increasing the statutory cap on the number of permanent judges that can be appointed to the Māori Land Court from eight to 14. That will allow more Māori Land Court judges to be appointed to handle the increasing workload of the court as the need for extra judges arises. The bill will authorise the Chief Judge to delegate his or her powers and functions to the Deputy Chief Judge, which will allow the court to function more efficiently. In line with longstanding practice, this amendment will ensure that minor and necessary corrections can be made in a timely fashion. In relation to the validation of the decisions of Judge Norman F Smith in November 2000, when he was acting outside the the term of his temporary judicial warrant, this amendment will ensure that the judicially determined rights of applicants to the Māori Land Court at that time are protected.

The bill will clarify the role of the court in the resolution of disputes arising under the Maori Fisheries Act and the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act. This relates to the disputes resolution process used by the court for disputes arising under those two Acts. This amendment will ensure that Māori Land Court lawyers and applicants will understand how the disputes resolution process is to work. These amendments will provide clarity and certainty to aspects of the operations of the Māori Land Court over the last few years and for the future, given the importance of that court to the processes that are now under way to provide for the better utilisation of Maori assets. These amendments are important, and I urge all members of this House to support them.

In relation to the amendments to the Treaty of Waitangi Act, I am pleased to note that the bill will implement this Government’s election pledge to set a closing date of 1 September 2008 for the submission of all historical Treaty claims to the Waitangi Tribunal. A statutory date will give Māori, the Crown, and the Waitangi Tribunal the certainty of knowing that the historical inquiry process will be completed in a timely fashion. A time limit will allow Māori to concentrate on reaching settlements with the Crown.

The Maori Fisheries Act will be amended to allow Te Ohu Kai Moana to take account of section 28N rights in allocation. The section 28N rights are the preferential allocation of quota share to the holders of those rights. The Act will also be amended to ensure that the processes for deciding harbour quota claims are technically appropriate, and are resolved by agreement between relevant iwi, in line with the original policy intent.

Finally, in the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004, the definition of “pre-commencement space” will be amended to exclude areas not intended to be included in that definition. I commend this bill to the House, and look forward to considering it at the select committee.

SHANE JONES (Labour) Link to this

I rise briefly to take a short call in relation to the Māori Purposes Bill, and to isolate what is potentially its most important portion, which brings forward a set of parameters that will enable us to go to the next stage in relation to expediting the settlement of Treaty of Waitangi historic claims.

This evening we heard from my whanaunga Tau Henare, in a rather churlish and ill-informed way. Unfortunately, in the absence of content he reaches for personality sniping, and he not only demonstrated that he does not do it very well but brought forward an old, scratched record out of the cupboard. It is a scratched record of former hits. The hits are “What Can I Take to the Party?”. Of course, the song that he takes to the party is “What Party? I’ll Join Any Party”.

Then he was aided by Mr Brownlee, and he, too, trotted out some rather unfortunate things about the Minister of Māori Affairs and showed his ignorance about the fisheries settlement. Of course, his song that he takes to the party is “I Ate the Party”. He was followed later in this evening’s discussions by Mr Heatley, and we all know that whatever song he brings forward will be “I Bore the Party”.

We need to remember that although provision is made for an increase in the actual number of Māori Land Court judges, they will be appointed as time requires, through a very vigorous process. This notion that we will all wake up one Tuesday morning, come out of a meeting here in Wellington, Auckland, Eketāhuna, or Kaitāia, and be deluged with judges is actually wrong. The legislation provides for the bench to increase as the need arises. The need that we have addressed in refining and making some technical amendments, to overcome some administrative oversights, is normal lawmaking. I think the Opposition is being not only very childish but ill-informed if it thinks it will be able to stop this bill to tidy up a series of administrative oversights.

I commend this bill and also hope to see a better level of contribution from Mr Brownlee and my whanaunga Tau Henare during the course of people’s submissions, and I look forward to the bill coming back and enabling us to strengthen the Māori Land Court, address one or three small administrative defects in the fisheries and aquaculture settlement, and provide for growth in the number of Māori Land Court judges as they are required. Kia ora tātou.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs) Link to this

I move, That the Māori Purposes Bill be considered by the Māori Affairs Committee, referred to Māori Affairs Committee