DAVE HEREORA (Labour) Link to this
I take this opportunity to stand in support of the Māori Purposes Bill (No. 2) and I look forward to it coming to the Māori Affairs Committee. I want to assure the previous speaker in terms of the issue raised about increased funding that that, along with other issues, gives us the opportunity to consider it and make recommendations back to the House. I certainly look forward to that discussion with the members.
The Māori Purposes Bill (No. 2) is omnibus legislation that amends four existing pieces of legislation relating to issues relative to Māori: the Maniopoto Maori Trust Board Act 1988; the Maori Trust Boards Act 1955; the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975; and Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. I understand that it is intended that the bill will be broken up into four separate bills after the Committee of the whole House.
I note that the bill will bring into effect a key condition of the new deed of agreement achieved between the Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board and the Crown in relation to Lake Taupō, a taonga of Ngāti Tūwharetoa. The new deed of agreement clarifies Tūwharetoa’s property rights in Lake Taupō. Under previous agreements Tūwharetoa was granted a share in the revenue of the Crown generated from Lake Taupō, and Tūwharetoa’s ownership of the bed of Lake Taupō was also recognised. In 2005, negotiations were commenced to further clarify Tūwharetoa’s property rights in Lake Taupō, and in 2007 this resulted in a new deed of agreement between the Crown and Tūwharetoa in relation to the lake.
The terms of the deed include agreement that the people of New Zealand will continue to have freedom of access to Lake Taupō for non-commercial recreational use. Lake Taupō will be managed in partnership between the Crown and the trust board. The trust board as a landowner will have the right to change commercial operations for use of the lake, the Crown will continue to own and manage the trout fishery, and the Crown will pay the trust board a capital sum of $9.865 million in settlement of loss of revenue and other financial issues. In the spirit of partnership, the Crown will also increase its annual payment to the trust board to $1.5 million to better reflect the trust board’s share of the revenue the Crown generates from Lake Taupō. So although it may seem that the Māori Purposes Bill (No. 2) is simply making a technical amendment to section 10 of the Maori Trust Boards Act, it marks a significant step for all Ngāti Tūwharetoa.
On the amendment being made, the new annual payment will be triggered. This will put in place a key aspect of the deed, further strengthening the relationship between the Crown and Ngāti Tūwharetoa. The trust board will have certainty over its rights as owner, and a sound financial base from which to manage Lake Taupō for the benefit of Ngāti Tūwharetoa and the public of New Zealand.
I also indicate my support for the increase in membership of the Waitangi Tribunal. Last year the Māori Affairs Committee considered the amendment proposing a closing date of 1 September 2008 for submitting historical Treaty claims to the Waitangi Tribunal. I spoke in support of that amendment at the first reading of last year’s Māori Purposes Bill and I noted that a closing date would give Māori, the Crown, and the Waitangi Tribunal the certainty of knowing that historical inquiry processes would be completed in a timely fashion. The ability to appoint four extra tribunal members will ensure that the completion of the historical inquiry process is done not only in a timely fashion but also in a comprehensive and expert manner.
The Minister of Māori Affairs has indicated that this bill will be coming to the Māori Affairs Committee. The amendments are technical in nature and those groups likely to be affected by them have been widely consulted. Many support the proposals. The committee therefore looks forward to receiving this bill, considering the public submissions received, and reporting it back to the House. Kia ora.
Hon TAU HENARE (National) Link to this
I want to start by saying that the National Party will support this bill’s referral to the select committee, especially the very, very non-controversial issues with the Maori Trust Boards Act 1955—the voting age being 18, and the changes to the annual payment to the Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board under the new agreement relating to the lake—and issues with the Maniapoto Maori Trust Board Act 1988, including formalising of a new regional management committee for the Kāwhia Harbour and effecting a name change for the Maniapoto council of elders. Also, the minor drafting errors in Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 and Te Ture Whenua Maori Amendment Act 2002 are to be addressed.
I want to cut to the chase and say it is about time that there was an increase in the statutory cap in terms of the membership of the Waitangi Tribunal from 16 to 20. I think that some form of increase, and some form of change to the way we look at the Treaty settlement process, is well overdue. It has needed to happen for a long time. So I congratulate the Minister on at least increasing from 16 to 20 the statutory cap on the membership. Whether we will get an extra 4 people or whether we will get the maximum, and whether the tribunal will be funded appropriately to actually move quickly, to settle, to look into, and to tell the stories of those who are laying claims before the tribunal is another matter, and that, most probably, is not the outcome of this bill. On the surface, it is a mechanical bill that tightens the bolts, changes a few tyres here and there, and, hopefully, puts a new spin on this Minister of Māori Affairs and the work he has done—or the lack of work—over the last 7 or 8 years.
My colleague the Hon Georgina te Heuheu was absolutely right in her criticism of the Minister in terms of his wanting to include in this bill the amendment to the Maori Trustee Act 1955. I was shocked and appalled that no one had told the Minister that in a Māori Purposes bill we could not really have as controversial a measure as that. A Māori Purposes bill is an omnibus bill, and it is supposed to be supported by the House. At the briefing he gave the National Party we saw that the bill had the amendment to the Māori Trustee Act, and, as my colleague said, to change something like that, to use a Māori Purposes bill to change something as fundamental as the Māori Trustee and the role of the Māori Trustee, is huge. It is not only controversial but also a huge step in the wrong direction, I would suggest. There has not been any consultation whatsoever with those beneficiaries, who basically own the bank in terms of the Māori Trustee and whose money it is that the Māori Trustee looks after in the interest of those people.
The National Party will not stand in the way of this bill, which, as I said, is a mechanical bill. It changes the nuts, changes a few tyres here and there, and greases the wheels. I think, when it does come to the Māori Affairs Committee, we will find—and the House will find—that the most interesting part of this bill will be the amendment to the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. That really has been, and will continue to be, the nub of the question as to race relations in the next 5-10 years.
We know that educational standards, health issues, and the like will continue to be issues, but until this nation is able to stand up and say to itself that we have honestly and fairly tried to address the claims before the tribunal in a manner that is quick and lasting, then we are not going to go anywhere near where we thought our country might have been 10, 20, or 150 years ago. I think that will be the major point of the Māori Purposes Bill (No 2) when it comes before the select committee. It will be about where our nation goes. We cannot go down a track of just tinkering with legislation and hoping that one day things will just fall into place. The increase from 16 to 20 on the statutory cap is basically nothing legislation. We will see whether it does what the Minister says it will do. I have grave doubts, because we cannot increase the cap unless we are going—
No, it is not the Rt Hon Winston Peters’s fault, I say to Mr Horomia. It has nothing to do with New Zealand First. Like I said about the last bill, it has got everything to do with the Minister wanting to show the community that he has been doing something—whatever it is. For the last 8 years—
Hon Parekura Horomia Link to this
That’s why more Māori work. That’s why Māori assets are growing. We work hard.
Oh—market rents! That Minister can talk about market rents. He was one of the slum landlords down on the East Coast. He was trying to rent out his house to his whānau, and I would not have rented out a house that looked like that to a dog. But the Minister did, and we all know that. We all know he is a bit of a landlord down on the East Coast. We all know he is one of the absentee landlords, but that is all right. What we are talking about is a Clayton’s Treaty of Waitangi amendment to the Māori Purposes Bill.
What we are here today to talk about is that Minister’s lack of foresight and lack of vision in the 8 years he has been sitting in his seat and taking the ministerial salary, the Crown car, and everything that goes with it, like the free flights all around the country. All he can come up with is increasing the membership of the tribunal from 16 to 20. That is not going to work unless we put in substantial resources along with the extra four people.
Oh, it has been done—in the twilight of the member’s career. He is in the twilight of his career and he wants to make an impression, but the only lasting impression the Minister makes is that of a do-nothing Minister for 8 years.
National will vote for this bill. We want it to come before the select committee, because we want to hear what the people have to say about this Minister’s lack of work over 8 years. He has been paid, but he could have stayed at home. In fact, it would have been better if he had stayed at home and taken the salary that he has been on for so long. We will support this bill’s referral to the select committee, and we cannot wait for the submissions to roll in, in their thousands.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) Link to this
It must be great to be the spokesperson on Māori affairs for the National Party. That person could make one speech a year, then go home for Christmas. Mr Henare gets even that part wrong.
I ask which members remember the fiscal cap of $1 billion that Doug Graham floated in 1994 with National’s consent and backing. When I heard Georgina te Heuheu say that National would provide the resources on this matter I pricked up my ears, because that will come as the best-kept secret within the politics of this country as far as Māori are concerned. That is the first thing.
Secondly, as Mr Henare well knows, National says one thing before an election and does the very reverse after it. When National was in power there was never any mention whatsoever, in respect of the Māori Purposes Bill’s effect on the tribunal’s work, of ever properly providing the tribunal with the resources to do its job.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
Is that wrong? I ask Mr Finlayson to tell me why I am wrong. I say to Mr Finlayson that he cannot sit there and shout out every day. The member is qualified, so he can tell me why I am wrong. He cannot. That was the value of that interjection. I think Mr Finlayson is one of the most qualified people in the National Party.
R Doug WoolertonRt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
I suppose Mr Woolerton can throw in that interjection. When Mr Finlayson is put to the test, he also does not know what he is talking about.
This is National’s record. When did National provide the tribunal with the resources to do its job? Everybody knows that it is a huge job to be done, and if we are going to get the target settlement dates completed via the tribunal in a way that makes Māoridom happy, then the tribunal will need greater resourcing—perhaps more than this.
Hon Georgina te HeuheuRt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
I suppose we could say the Government is guilty of not doing anything in 8 years, but what is National’s record? What has National’s record been since 1975? It has done nothing at all. It has done nothing at all since the tribunal was first established.
I also say to Mr Henare that it is not right to criticise a Māori who still owns ancestral land. That is the aim of the exercise—to have ancestral land, to keep it, and, hopefully, to pass it on to future generations. Why Mr Horomia should be slagged for being such a Māori is beyond me, but then there may be a slight envy factor that we could refer to here.
The Māori Trustee funds have been taken out of this bill. I ask whether members remember that in 1985 an attempt was made by Roger Douglas to sweep all the funds into the consolidated account via an addition to the schedule. That is what he did, and he got stopped—not by the National Party. [Interruption] No, he was not one of mine. Roger Douglas has never been one of New Zealand First’s people. I say to Mr Bennett that Roger Douglas is one of his types of people, and he is welcome to him.
Hon Darren HughesRt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
Well, he is a new member and he does not even know who Roger Douglas is. But I will tell members what he does know. He knows how to imitate Roger Douglas’ policies—how to pillage the country and leave it wide open to the ravages of international money, based not on the interests of this country’s wealth and export creation but just on helping out one’s mates, which is what the Electoral Finance Bill is all about, as we all know.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
Well, they always revert to type. That happened in 1985. Then, of course, as Georgina te Heuheu said, there was an inquiry in 1991 by two very able people, Mr Charters in particular, and the Māori Trustee has been soundly based ever since. We will be very interested to see what the legislation says, come next year.
Let me ask a question of the National Party. What is the National Party policy on the issue of the Māori Trustee?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
Oh, I get it. What is the policy? It is “wait and see”. Why have those members departed from their real policy, which is “me too-ism”? Someone on the Government side of the House says something, and National members say “me too”. It goes even as far as the music industry. We have seen it in respect of National’s DVD. Why everybody is complaining about Mr Key using Coldplay’s music I do not know, because that is what National’s stance has been. It is “me too” on everything, including the music. We saw a variation on that today. It is called “wait and see”.
I suggest to the National Party spokesperson from Tūwharetoa that we would like to know National’s policy before Christmas. All these Māori will be going to all these unveilings and all these marae, and having all these whānau meetings, and they would like to know what the National Party’s policy is.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
He would be the only guy in the party who does.
All I want to say is simply this. The bill does increase the numbers on the tribunal from 16 to 20. Frankly, I think it is not enough. The tribunal needs more members if we are to expedite its work and take this issue, which has tended to linger for far too long, off the political agenda as a result of people being satisfied that their claims have been properly met.
While I am talking about this issue, I just want to say this. The Central Plateau settlement should be going ahead with expedition. To delay this matter month after month and year after year is not in anybody’s interests. I would ask those other people who are not happy to go back again to join with the original claimant group in order to try to sort out this matter before they next come to Government, rather than go through this tortuous process of going to the High Court for a further legal wrangle. But, then again, which party said that this would be the matter that would create more dissension amongst Māori than any other? In actual fact, it was New Zealand First. We said that. There is nothing as antiseptic as the old saying “I told you so”, but we did say that.
I conclude by thanking the Minister for the precise and clear way in which he enunciated the provisions of the bill, and to wish all those in Māoridom—in fact, the country itself—a very happy Christmas and a delightful New Year.
METIRIA TUREI (Green) Link to this
I will take just a very short call on the Māori Purposes Bill (No 2), to say that the Green Party is supporting it. We are pleased to be able to do so. It does do some useful things. I do not see that it is particularly controversial, though some members, especially this week, have made an absolute drama out of all sorts of strange things, for quite unnecessary reasons. But it all adds to the pleasure of being here, so I do not mind particularly. It is certainly entertaining. It is very good that this bill is before the House. It means that this work will be done. We agree with much of what is in the bill, and we look forward to the comments from submitters and to working in the select committee on progressing the legislation. Thank you.
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) Link to this
Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. As has been noted before, this bill is an omnibus bill amending four Acts: the Maniapoto Maori Trust Board Act 1988, the Maori Trust Boards Act 1955, the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, and Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. In considering these bills I thought of some words of my ancestors—he kai kei te hara a te kakī. It is a literal reference to food that causes the throat to sin, which is an allusion to the sin of overindulgence—arā, kai kia mākona. Gluttony is a fault that is severely criticised amongst Māoridom, and gluttony is the fault we level at this Maori Purposes Bill (No 2). The only consolation we can offer the House is the fact that the excesses of this bill today are at least somewhat restrained by the fact that the amendments to the Maori Trustee Act 1953 will be considered at a later stage.
We want to place on record our appreciation that the Minister of Māori Affairs listened to our concerns about the overcrowding of bills that have come before this House. We will never understand the logic of squashing a whole heap of different legislative items together for the sake of getting them through the House. We are pleased that the very significant proposals being put up around creating the Māori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation have been deferred for another day. I say kia ora to Parekura.
But getting back to the feast that is being debated today, I turn to the bill that we will digest in its four separate parts. The chameleon actions of this Government towards the age of youth never cease to astound us. On the one hand, the Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill creates a situation in which 16 and 17-year-olds are entitled only to 80 percent of the adult wage, and then this bill looks to promote a minimum voting age of 18 years.
The amendments to the Maori Trust Boards Act address yet another peculiarity around age—this time, the fact that the current minimum voting age under the Act is 20 years. The thing is that the Māori trust boards that come within the jurisdiction of this bill are mandated iwi organisations, subject to the Maori Fisheries Act 2004, in which the minimum voting age is 18 years. This is not the first piece of legislation, and it is bound not to be the last, in which the merry-go-round of eligibility ages for youth is creating havoc for legislators. We suggest that a useful outcome of this specific issue in the Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) to validate the voting age as 18 might be to consider a broader item of legislation that addresses the uncertainty around consistency with matters of age.
Another aspect of the amendments to the Maori Trust Boards Act is the amendment to give effect to the recent agreement made between Ngāti Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board and the Crown, to repeal annuity and revenue-sharing arrangements in place of a lump-sum payment. This aspect of the bill has a fascinating whākapapa dating back some 80 years to 1927, when the Crown legislated to vest title in Lake Taupō, the Waikato River—up to and including the Huka Falls—and most of the rivers flowing into Lake Taupō.
It was only 15 years ago, in 1992, following years of negotiations, that the Crown agreed to return title to the trust board as trustee for its beneficiaries. The passage of the last decade and more has seen the Ngāti Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board involved in complex negotiations towards securing title in respect of the lake bed and the bed of the Waikato River to the Huka Falls. Having secured title, the board negotiated with the Crown to grant licences and concessions for commercial purposes, and to charge for them.
This series of negotiations, contained in a deed signed on 10 September 2007, has freed up Tūwharetoa to negotiate with local government in the management of the lake as a taonga of Ngāti Tūwharetoa. This bill therefore comes at the end of some 80 years of perseverance and commitment from Tūwharetoa to give effect to that September agreement to repeal annuity and revenue-sharing arrangements, in place of an annual payment to Ngāti Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board.
We support the opportunity for Tūwharetoa to proceed in this regard, but we must place on record the ongoing issues that remain to be dealt with regarding the anomaly to do with water—that is, that Tūwharetoa has rights over space above the water but not over the water itself. To use a word that has been used in this Chamber today, is this not something of a Clayton’s concept if ever there was one?
I refer now to the Ngāti Maniapoto Māori Trust Board. The amendment relating to the trust board is a significant but safe set of proposals around naming and representation rights. The bill will change the name of the Maniapoto council of elders from Te Mauri o Maniapoto to Te Kaumatua Kaunihera o Maniapoto. Both the council and the trust board agree that the new name better reflects the nature of the council, and, given the obvious unity, we will, of course support the proposal, which reflects their interests.
The bill also amends the Māori Trust Boards Regulations 1985 to enable a new Nga Tai o Kawhia Regional Management Committee for the Kāwhia Harbour region to have representation on the Ngāti Maniapoto Māori Trust Board. That is another amendment that we as the Māori Party, a proud and independent Māori voice in Parliament, will of course support to ensure that all Maniapoto-affiliated marae are represented both by a regional management committee and by a representative on the trust board.
The Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) also introduces two amendments to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993: one, to remove an incorrect reference to section 227 in section 40(2); and, two, to, of all things, correct the spelling of “incorporation”. I might be out of order here but, really, how can it take 14 years for someone to realise that “incorporation” is spelt with two i’s and not one!
I move now to the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. The last course in the hākari laid out in the Māori Purposes Bill (No 2) will be to increase the statutory cap on the membership of the Waitangi Tribunal from 16 to 20. This move to enhance the membership is in response to an anticipated increase in its workload as a result of the rushing forward of the closing date for the submission of historical Treaty claims in 2008. This is a very significant amendment and one that we wholeheartedly support. Any proposal to assist iwi in having their claims heard before the tribunal is to be supported.
Indeed, this was a proposal that we first announced on 9 May 2007 in our release calling for more resourcing for the Waitangi Tribunal. We have constantly sought support for the enhancement of the role of the Waitangi Tribunal so it can deal with claims more speedily. The tribunal needs to be resourced sufficiently so it can work full time. We are hopeful that increasing the statutory cap on the membership of the Waitangi Tribunal will be a step in the right direction and will lead also to the opportunity to review more widely regarding functions and funding.
We note, however, that setting deadlines for historical claims will not actually do anything to bring the process to an end. Just as the amendments to specify a voting age of 18 bring up far broader issues around entitlement, no one in this House can ignore the wider context around the Treaty settlement process. Improving the settlement process from a Māori perspective will ensure that the claims will be settled earlier, that they will be settled fairly, and that there is broad consensus for the process and therefore greater commitment to settlement resolution. This bill does not achieve the progress we so desperately need, but it does establish a starting point for at least the conversation to occur. We will support this bill going to the select committee to ensure that the conversation is given space to take place.
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) Link to this
I will take a brief call because the National Party has indicated through previous speakers that it will support this bill going to a select committee. As a member of the Māori Affairs Committee I am looking forward to dealing with the issues it raises, particularly in relation to Part 3, which deals with the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975.
But before dealing with the particular provisions, I think, in fairness to Sir Douglas Graham, who was such an outstanding Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, I ought to respond in some detail to the vulgar, crude, and intemperate attack made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. He has come back from North Korea and, of course, we are pleased to see him back from North Korea, but I think that he has learnt a thing or two from his new friend Kim Jong Il and he is confusing the truth and propaganda.
When we look at the truth of the record of the National Government between 1992 and 1999 and at the work done by Sir Douglas Graham as the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, we know that for Mr Peters to stand up in this House and insult that work by implication is totally unfair. The record of the National Government between 1992 and 1999 in this area is nothing other than outstanding, and that Minister, who is now a member of the Labour Government—he ran away from the National Party in the mid-1990s—did not do anything to advance the cause of justice in so far as the historical grievances were concerned.
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON Link to this
I can understand why he probably has the pip that Sir Douglas Graham was made the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, because I know he made a bid for it when he was the Minister of Māori Affairs. But Jim Bolger, with his customary foresight, knew he would be no good and he appointed Sir Douglas Graham, who was then the Minister of Justice, to take the job. So I can understand why that member has got the pip. He was pipped at the post by Sir Douglas Graham. All I can say for New Zealand is thank goodness he was, because if he had been the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, then his performance probably would have been as lousy as Mark Burton’s.
The reality of the matter is that Jim Bolger and Sir Douglas Graham did a great job in the Treaty area, and they can be very proud of what they did. For that member, the former member of Tauranga, to stand up 9 years later and insult that memory is grossly unfair. If he has any decency he will stand up and apologise to Sir Douglas Graham when I have finished my speech.
It is a great honour to follow Georgina te Heuheu, because she was a member of the tribunal from 1986 to 1996, and a very good member of the tribunal she was. She was there, and when she talks about issues about the tribunal, she talks not only as an extremely diligent member of Parliament but also as a person who made a significant contribution to New Zealand as a member of that tribunal.
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON Link to this
Oh, the member asks where the policy is. The policy will be announced in due course. Where is the member’s policy on all sorts of things? The policy will be announced in due course, and I am sure that the Māori of New Zealand will be very impressed with it. We will wipe the floor with you when the policy is announced. Let me deal very briefly with—
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know that the member is a very junior member and has just arrived here, but he cannot talk about wiping the floor “with you”. That is not a proper parliamentary term. I would ask him to try to collect his thoughts, which are pretty chaotic right now, and apologise for what he said.
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON Link to this
That is quite right. The last thing I would say is “wipe the floor with you”, Madam Assistant Speaker. I regret that, because, of course, what I meant to say was that we will wipe the floor with the former member for Tauranga, just as Bob Clarkson will wipe the floor with the former member of Tauranga if Mr Peters decides to stand there again.
Let us get on to clause 16, which deals with the jurisdiction of the tribunal. This clause is an extremely good amendment and the National Party will support it. Clause 16 amends section 6 of the Treaty of Waitangi Act. It sets out the jurisdiction of the tribunal to consider claims. While the Minister of Foreign Affairs was away in Pyongyang his colleague Mr Woolerton introduced what could only be described as a half-baked member’s bill to try to delete all references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi from section 6.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is outside the Standing Orders and parliamentary rules to seek to relitigate a bill that has been dealt with in the same term of a Parliament, as this speaker is wont to do and is trying to do now. I know that he is new to the House, and that he is only a junior member and does not know too much about procedure, but he cannot do that. I would ask him to come back to the legislation before the House now.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) Link to this
The member was making references outside the bill. He should please continue.
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON Link to this
I was, of course, making reference in passing for the benefit of the Minister, who has been so busy cuddling up to Kim Jong Il in Pyongyang that I thought it only fair I should tell him what his colleagues have been up to. That bill could only be described as dopey legislation, which sought to remove all references to the principles. Maybe if the Minister has time at some point, he should read section 6(1) of the Treaty of Waitangi Act, and he would see that to remove references to the principles there would render the whole Act meaningless.
What is proposed is that all the subclauses in section 6 from subclause (4A) through to the end of section 6 be removed and put in the schedule. That is a perfectly sensible amendment and the National Party will support it. That issue really does not need any argument in the select committee.
The second point—and it has been adverted to by a number of speakers, including Dr Sharples—concerns clause 15. It involves increasing the number of members of the tribunal from 16 to 20. The National Party, again, thinks that is a very sensible proposal.
But, as all the speakers have said, it is only part of the story, because the tribunal is suffering from not only a lack of numbers of members who can do the job but also a lack of adequate resourcing. Indeed, section 4(5) of the Act states that the Ministry of Justice is obligated to “furnish such secretarial, recording, and other services as may be necessary to enable the Tribunal to exercise its functions and powers.” The reality of the matter is that the legislative framework is there to enable this sort of thing, but it has not happened adequately enough over recent years. The tribunal suffers from a lack of resources. In particular, it suffers from a lack of qualified historians.
There is also the need for proper funding for hearings, so that, as Mrs te Heuheu said, hearings can proceed with greater speed than they proceeded, for example, in the northern South Island tribunal inquiry Wai785. That was a stop-start affair for a number of years. For example, in August 2003 for a couple of days, the claimants themselves presented their evidence. Then there was a gap for some months before a hearing was held at Ōmaka Marae from 13 to 17 October, when Ngāi Tahu presented its evidence in response. Again, there was another gap until November of that year, when the Crown heard evidence. Then there were final submissions—I know, because I was involved in them—early in the following year. Then there was a 3-year gap between the final submissions and the tribunal’s release of the report.
Maybe the Minister of Foreign Affairs thinks a 3-year gap between the final submissions and the report is acceptable, but we in the National Party do not. We think it is unfair on the claimants, it is unfair on the Crown, and it is unfair on those who get involved in the hearings before the tribunal.
So we say these are good measures, but they are only part of the story. What is needed is proper funding and proper resourcing—particularly, I emphasise, proper resourcing achieved by finding historians who can help write the reports. These are the issues the Government needs to face.
When this Māori Purposes Bill (No 2) becomes law and the Treaty of Waitangi Act is thereby amended, the framework for getting on with the job and for completing Sir Douglas Graham’s great achievements is there, but a lot more work needs to be done. National will be supporting this bill going through to the select committee, but we say that it is only part of the story. This Government’s record on funding the tribunal, and indeed on the important work of resolving the historical grievances, is particularly poor, even by the Government’s standards.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) Link to this
I seek leave to table the E9 for the 1996 election, in which the National Party had a disastrous year in the Māori seats and we in New Zealand First won the whole lot of them, which would probably give a clear indication as to whether Mr Finlayson, the previous speaker, was making any sense or telling any truth whatsoever in his speech.
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) Link to this
I seek leave to table the results of the election in Tauranga in 2005, when Kim Jong Il’s mate was completely outclassed by Bob Clarkson.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) Link to this
I seek leave to table the returns in respect of expenditure in the Tauranga electorate at the last election, in which one candidate declared $10,000 and the court said: “No, you are not telling the truth. It is much more than that. Let us work our way through and find out what it is.” He did sneak through because of other things, but the reality of it all is that he put in a false return.
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) Link to this
I seek leave to table the report of the full court of the High Court that adjudicated on the petition brought by Mr Peters, which was the second resounding loss he had in 2005.
BOB CLARKSON (National—Tauranga) Link to this
I seek leave to table the paper declaring where Winston got his funds from during the election in Tauranga—Western Bay Finance—but, unfortunately, I do not have a paper, so I cannot do it.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) Link to this
The member should not trifle with the House like that. If members do not have something to table, then they cannot ask for leave to table it.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Assistant Speaker. That member has made that allegation to the man in question, who has denied it—as I deny it. Why does he not go outside and say it? Because he knows he will have his little bottom sued off. There he is, prepared to make a statement to this House without one fact or the document, and, having said it, he admitted it. He should go outside and say that, and we will see how long he lasts—“Big Boy”!
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) Link to this
I rise to return the House to the seriousness of the Māori Purposes Bill (No 2) and to take a short call on the bill, of which my colleague the Hon Parekura Horomia very ably moved the first reading today and on which the Minister of Foreign Affairs has also spoken very ably.
The bill is one that is largely technical in nature, and perhaps not one that many Pākehā have paid much attention to. I note that it will be broken up into four separate parts during the Committee of the whole House stage of the bill. There are two parts that I would particularly like to speak on. The first is the bill’s provision for an increase in the membership of the Waitangi Tribunal from 16 to 20 members. The Labour Government is committed to settling all historical Treaty claims by 2020. The closing date of the submission of historical claims to the tribunal is, as we all know, 1 September 2008. Four of the current 16 warranted members of the Waitangi Tribunal are historians. Of course, the increase in the number of historical claims and the time frame in which they will need to inquire and report to the tribunal make it essential that there be more provision for extra members of the tribunal. Even more important, we have to consider the fact that many of the current members are part-time and that there are questions about whether they can serve on every case. It is essential that this work is done clearly, straightforwardly, and with provision for reaching the date of 2020.
It seems to me that an important part of reaching the goal of the ability of the tribunal to inquire and report fairly and openly is that we increase the number to 20. Many Pākehā will not have realised the significance of this, but the fact is that those four additional members should assist the tribunal in achieving that goal of inquiring into, and reporting on, the historical Treaty claims by 2015, contributing to the Labour Government’s goal of settling all those historical Treaty claims by 2020, which is something that has been well received throughout this country.
Before the House rose for the dinner break I was speaking on the Māori Purposes Bill (No 2), and I had dealt with the increase in numbers for the Waitangi Tribunal, which is a very sensible move in the bill.
The second matter I was interested to take a short call on is that of voting ages. The bill will align the minimum voting ages under the Maori Trust Boards Act 1955 and the Maori Fisheries Act 2004. This is a very good thing. Some Māori trust boards, of course, also act as trustees of their iwi fisheries entity. This means in practice that when iwi members vote for members of their trust board they are also voting for the trustees of their fisheries settlement entity. So we can understand some confusion over who is eligible to vote. Under the Maori Trust Boards Act iwi members must be 20 whereas under the Maori Fisheries Act 2004, 18 and 19-year-olds can also vote. This inconsistency in the minimum voting ages causes statutory compliance issues for trust boards. If trust boards let beneficiaries aged 20 years and over vote, they will find that they comply with the Maori Trust Boards Act but are in breach of the Maori Fisheries Act. Equally, if trust boards let 18 and 19-year-olds vote, they will comply with the Maori Fisheries Act but will be in breach of the Maori Trust Boards Act.
The bill will change the minimum voting age under the Maori Trust Boards Act to 18 years, bringing the Act into line not only with the Maori Fisheries Act—a very good move on the Minister’s part—but also with society’s common understanding of the age of maturity and the voting age for general and other elections. Considering the many different legal ages for various things in New Zealand, any move to align ages of entitlements is a very good action, and will be of general interest to the New Zealand community.
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs) Link to this
I move, That the Māori Purposes Bill (No 2) be considered by the Māori Affairs Committee,
A party vote was called for on the question,
That the motion be agreed to.
Ayes 70
- New Zealand Labour 49
- New Zealand First 7
- Green Party 6
- Māori Party 4
- United Future 2
- Progressive 1
- Independent 1 (Field)
Noes 49
- New Zealand National 48
- Independent 1 (Copeland)
Motion agreed to.