Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill

PITA PARAONE (NZ First) Link to this

I move, That the Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that this bill be considered by the Justice and Electoral Committee. To begin, let me be clear, and I merely raise this as a matter of clarification, as it has been queried by some outside of this House who have tried to frame New Zealand First’s motives in terms of the personalities involved. They are wrong.

This bill was drawn from the ballot in October last year, and at the time I said that it presents an opportunity to remove what we in New Zealand First see as an inherent conflict of interest in the operation of the courts and special jurisdictions sphere of the Ministry of Justice. This bill is not intended to place into question the integrity of the Chief Judge of the Māori Land Court, and/or the chairman of the Waitangi Tribunal. New Zealand First does not care who fills the roles; we simply believe that they should not be filled by one and the same person, as is the current position. This bill has come about from the concern held by New Zealand First of the perception of a possible conflict of interest. New Zealand First has thought about it with reason and with logic, and has given the bill due consideration before bringing it to this House.

The bill removes the inherent conflict of interest that presently exists that allows serving judges of the High Court or Māori Land Court, including the Chief Judge of the Māori Land Court, to serve as members of the Waitangi Tribunal, and where the judge is either a serving or retired judge of the High Court or the Chief Judge of the Māori Land Court, to preside as chairperson of the tribunal. However, some may think that it may be fine for a judge of the Māori Land Court to continue to sit on the Waitangi Tribunal but not as its chairperson. We in New Zealand First would like to think that this possibility will be considered during the select committee process.

Serving judges of the High Court from time to time—and if they have not as yet, then they certainly have the capacity to do so—adjudicate on Treaty of Waitangi claims and in the Māori Land Court. As such, they have to adjudicate on decisions made by the Waitangi Tribunal, particularly in relation to land claims. It would seem highly dubious to us in New Zealand First to allow serving judges of either court to preside over matters on the Waitangi Tribunal when they may have presided over those matters in the High Court, or, indeed, the Māori Land Court. It seems also highly dubious to allow serving judges of either court to preside over matters on the tribunal when they may have presided over these matters in the High Court or the Māori Land Court. This bill removes the possibility of this occurring.

The bill removes the ability of serving judges of the High Court or the Māori Land Court to serve as members of the Waitangi Tribunal in any capacity. Instead, it provides for retired judges of the High Court or the Māori Land Court, including the Chief Judge of the Māori Land Court, to be members of the Waitangi Tribunal, and where that retired judge is either a retired judge of the High Court or a retired Chief Judge of the Māori Land Court, to preside as chairperson of the tribunal. That is covered in clause 4.

This bill raises an important practical issue that ought to be addressed beyond the first reading debate. We in New Zealand First also believe that there are sufficient Māori with the talents and qualifications to fill these roles without keeping the roles to a very small pool of people. We simply cannot accept that there are not other Māori with sufficient qualifications and experience who can be appointed to one or other of the two roles that we are talking about in this bill.

As an aside, I note that earlier during this parliamentary term, under the auspices of the Māori Purposes Bill sponsored by the Minister of Māori Affairs, this House passed a measure allowing for an increase in the number of Māori Land Court judges to be appointed. Why was this? It was because it recognised the increase in the workload that judges of this court would have to deal with as a consequence of a particular Treaty settlement.

From that same bill, this House supported a clause that allowed for the Chief Judge of the Māori Land Court to delegate his duties to his deputy. In my mind, I have regarded this as not only recognising the importance of ensuring the responsibilities of the Chief Judge of the Māori Land Court are able to be maintained but as also recognising the fact that the workload of being Chief Judge of the Māori Land Court and being chair of the Waitangi Tribunal simultaneously is such that such a delegation was a necessity to ensure the smooth running of these two organisations. I am not suggesting that this in itself is sufficient reason for this House to adopt this bill, but it certainly gives rise for further consideration of the intent of this bill.

On behalf of New Zealand First, I ask that this House seriously consider sending this bill to a select committee to allow the people of New Zealand—not least, those who are involved in the judiciary—to express their views and to hear what they have to say on this matter. I support the referral of this bill to the select committee.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) Link to this

National will support the first reading of the Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill and its reference to the Justice and Electoral Committee.

The explanatory note of the bill states that clause 4 addresses what is alleged to be the inherent conflict of interest that permits “serving Judges of the High Court or Māori Land Court (including the Chief Judge”—Joe Williams—“of the Māori Land Court) to serve as members of the Waitangi Tribunal.” I wonder whether this is, in fact, an inherent conflict of interest. That is what the select committee will need to examine.

Conflicts of interest can arise in a number of ways, and people in private and public life who are in certain positions need to take care lest they find themselves in one. For example, lawyers can find themselves in a conflict of interest when they act against a former client, when they act for more than one party in a transaction, or when they place their own business interests above their professional responsibilities. Indeed, the law reports are replete with cases where courts have found against lawyers in those sorts of situations.

The most recent report of the Auditor-General on the subject provides very good guidance for public officials and their need always to avoid a conflict of interest. But I am not sure that there is necessarily a conflict of interest as articulated by Mr Paraone in his speech. After all, it is not uncommon for a judge of one court to sit in another court. For example, judges of the High Court sometimes sit in the Court of Appeal on the criminal appeal or civil appeal divisions, and District Court judges sometimes serve on other courts, like the Environment Court. Sometimes they may even obtain a warrant to sit as a temporary judge of the High Court.

So I do not know that there is an inherent conflict of interest in a judge of either the Māori Land Court or the High Court sitting on the tribunal. But, because of the serious issues the bill raises, I think it can do no harm to have a good look at the issue, given the hugely important work of the tribunal, whose workload I am sure will increase when National gains office and treats the Treaty negotiations process as something into which energy and practical idealism should be injected after 8 years of negligence from this Labour Government.

When the New Zealand First member replies, I will be very grateful if he could address a rather sweeping proposition that judges of the High Court or Māori Land Court preside over matters on the tribunal when they may have presided over matters in the High Court or Māori Land Court, because I would venture to suggest that such a situation would never occur, for a number of reasons.

First, the jurisdiction of the courts in question and the tribunal are completely different. The tribunal’s jurisdiction is conferred by the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. As we know, the tribunal has all the powers of a commission of inquiry and is set up to investigate breaches of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Given that that issue is before the Justice and Electoral Committee tomorrow, I would note that if the member’s Principles of the Treaty Deletion Bill is passed, I cannot see what work the tribunal would have to do, because it is set up to examine breaches of the principles of the Treaty.

The jurisdiction of the Māori Land Court is derived mainly from section 18 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. The High Court was reconstituted by section 3 of the Judicature Act 1908 as a court of record for the administration of justice throughout New Zealand, and by virtue of section 16 continues to have all the jurisdiction that it had on the coming into operation of the Judicature Act 1908. It also has all judicial jurisdiction that may be necessary to administer the laws of New Zealand. In practical terms, its workload is completely different from the work of the tribunal.

The only time the work of the tribunal may be raised in the High Court would be if someone sought judicial review of a decision of the tribunal by applying under the Judicature Amendment Act of 1972, and that has happened on a number of occasions over the years. In jurisdictional terms, I cannot see how the different jurisdictions of the tribunal and the courts can intersect. If, however, there was an application for judicial review of the tribunal, then it would be unthinkable for a judge presiding over the Waitangi Tribunal that made the decision under review also to preside in the High Court. He or she would automatically recuse himself or herself. The example provided for in the explanatory note of the bill in my opinion does not have any merit.

From time to time, some people have raised the concern expressed by Pita Paraone in his bill, but for reasons other than those advanced tonight. It has been said, for example, that judges deal with legal questions, whereas tribunal members, by virtue of the jurisdiction of the tribunal, are actually advising Governments and are dealing with contemporary and also historical issues, and some say that this is not necessarily an ideal position for a judge.

For myself, I have a few difficulties with this argument. As I said earlier, a tribunal has all the powers of a commission of inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1908. It is a semi-judicial body, although its procedures are not the same as those of a High Court. It is more inquisitorial than adjudicative, and the rules of evidence and procedure are somewhat more relaxed than those that apply in the High Court. In other words, it is not a court of record, which issues judgments. Its findings are recommendatory only, save in a few respects. But examination of this issue could be a useful one for the select committee to undertake.

The most meritorious argument in favour of preventing judges from sitting on the tribunal is that tribunal members could then be full-time, with tribunals almost sitting full-time. I know from my own experience at the Bar that nothing is more taxing than a hearing week in the tribunal. I well recall a hearing of the Wai 785 tribunal at Omaka Marae near Blenheim in late 2003. The tribunal had money to enable a week of hearings to take place, and Judge Isaac’s diary had a free week. Accordingly, the tribunal sat for 5 days but because of the time pressures the tribunal started at around 8.30 a.m. and went through until 6 p.m. That meant that the poor lawyers had to work late into the night having discussions with their clients and then either briefing evidence or preparing for the next day’s cross-examination.

If tribunals could be resourced so that they could sit more regular hours, without that kind of pressure, I think the interests of justice would be served and the work of the tribunals would be that much more effective. This is a very important issue that needs to be discussed for that reason, more than the reasons that Mr Paraone has mentioned, but none the less I think it is an important issue justifying the bill’s reference to the Justice and Electoral Committee. I feel confident that the select committee should be able to consider these issues, receive submissions, and determine whether the concerns raised by the bill are realistic, or not worthy of further consideration.

For these reasons, because of the importance of the issues, and because of the hugely important role that the Waitangi Tribunal plays in the justice system of our nation, National will support the first reading of the bill. I hear what the member says about its reference to the Justice and Electoral Committee. Perhaps—and it is for the member to decide, because it is none of my business—it could go to the Māori Affairs Committee. As my friend knows, that committee is not exactly overwhelmed with work at the moment so perhaps it could be in a position to give the matter more careful and detailed consideration than the very busy Justice and Electoral Committee. Given that I serve on both committees I am indifferent but, as I say, it is none of my business. Ultimately it is a question for the member whose bill this is.

In conclusion, National supports the first reading of the bill and its reference to the select committee so that these important issues can be properly canvassed.

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) Link to this

Otirā, kei te Kaiwhakawā e noho nei i te tūru o te Whare nei, tēnā koe, otīrā, tēnā tātou. Tū noa iho tēnei ki te tautoko i te pānuitanga tuatahi o tēnei pire. Otirā, i mua atu i tēnā, he whakaaro kē tā mātou kei tēnei taha o te Whare. Nō reira, ko koe rā e Pita, nāu tonu i ārahi mai tēnei pire i runga i tōu ake whakaaro, kia whakatikatikangia ngā āhuatanga e pā ana ki te taraipiunara, kia āhei hoki te hunga kei waho ki te kōrerohia ō rātou whakaaro e pā ana ki tēnei pire, nō reira, tēnā koe.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) Link to this

I should have reminded members that after the first two speeches, the speeches are of 5-minutes duration.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) Link to this

Tekau meneti Whāea; e rima i te reo Māori, e rima anō i te reo Pākehā.

METIRIA TUREI (Green) Link to this

The Greens will not be supporting this bill, either, for the reasons that have been outlined much more articulately than I can articulate them by my colleague Hone Harawira, who spoke just before me. We do not consider there is any problem that needs to be addressed. We cannot see the mischief that this bill is supposed to address, and we think that in large part this bill is about applying a double standard. It applies a separate standard to Māori judges, to Māori courts, and, therefore, to Māori people and their concerns, from the standard it applies to the rest of the population. That is not acceptable. This Parliament should not support any legislation that does that to the detriment of Māori people.

As far as we can tell—and we may be wrong about this—the only situation where there has been this combination is in relation to the current chair of the Waitangi Tribunal. So, again, where exactly is the mischief? This is not systemic to the process; it is simply one example. What this is really about—and I agree with the previous speaker on this—is an attack, particularly from New Zealand First, on the institutions that protect the ability of Māori to resolve their issues through the appropriate forums.

New Zealand First is well known for its attacks against what it calls the Treaty gravy train. In the time I have been in this House, which is nearly 5 years, at least two other members’ bills from New Zealand First about the removal of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi have been brought before the House. There have been perpetual attacks, particularly by Winston Peters, the leader, on Māori lawyers, on Māori claimants, on Māori judges, and on Māori who are trying to find ways to broker a better process for the settlement and who are dealing with the restoration of historical wrongs. It is a form of denial about what is really happening for Māori. It is a form of denial against the ability of Māori to reclaim our opportunities, to be independent, to be economically independent, and to have control over our own lives and our own people.

I guess for some—obviously for New Zealand First—it is a threat that Māori may have more control over the issues that concern them; that they may have more control over their own economic development and resources. Frankly, it is very difficult to see what else the point is. Why would this party attack these Māori institutions so strenuously unless it felt that there was some inherent threat to them? That is unfortunate, because it is not a real threat. I know that a number of New Zealand First members are deeply involved in Māori institutions that are progressing economically and doing very well, and that they are very committed to that. So why then continually attack the institutions that help to support that independence and that movement towards independence?

It is certainly true that since the foreshore and seabed legislation—and, actually, before that too—there have been significant attacks made on the Māori judiciary. It was most obvious and most vehement and vicious during the foreshore and seabed debates. I was here during that time, as many members will know, and I witnessed some of the comments made against the judiciary, which had been trying to find a reasonable process in law to deal with a very complex issue. The judiciary had found a very good process. It had used the current legal system and its rules to find in favour of Māori being able to continue to use that process, and it was attacked for doing so.

Since then we have had continual attacks on, in particular, the judges of the Waitangi Tribunal. I think though that those attacks have been going on for quite a long time. Even just the fact that the tribunal was stripped of its power—for example, the power to make mandatory recommendations, because it did actually exercise that power once, so the tribunal had that power taken from it immediately it had exercised it—was a clear example of that attack in previous years. We are seeing that exact same thing happen with the Government’s refusal to acknowledge the validity of the tribunal’s most recent claims because they attack the Government’s settlement process at heart and describe it as being unfair.

I think it is much better for this House to dispose of this legislation. It should not go any further. It should be thrown out of the House right now, today. Thank you.

Hon DOVER SAMUELS (Minister of State) Link to this

Ā, e tū ana au ki te whakautu i ētahi o ngā pānui a taku whanaunga a Hone Harawira. E pēnei ana waku whakaaro. Mai rā anō, harakau te iwi tauiwi i haramai ki te kōrero mō ā rātou āwangawanga mō tēnei take engāri, te nuinga o ngā reo e haere mai ana ki te kōrero, ko te iwi Māori.

[I rise to respond to some of the statements made by my relation Hone Harawira. My thoughts are as follows. Since the bill’s gestation, non-Māori have never come to express their concerns about it. The majority have been Māori.]

Let me say—

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

I want to take just a very brief call to explain that United Future will support this first reading of the Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill. We believe that there are some issues that need to be discussed and that the select committee provides a good forum for that discussion. The issues that this bill seeks to address are ones we have heard talked about in the wider community and in other forums as well.

I signal that we have some concerns about this proposal. We believe that the Waitangi Tribunal needs the service of the people with the most expertise in order to execute its mandate. Our worry is that this bill would remove from service some of the most competent people available. So we are happy to have the discussion and we support the first reading, but we signal at this stage that we are looking for feedback from submitters and from the select committee deliberations on that type of issue. Unless we have those concerns satisfied we will not be able to support this bill any further.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) Link to this

Firstly, I want to make it clear to my colleague from Tai Tokerau and my colleague from the Greens that there is absolutely no suggestion because of the Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill that there is any concern within New Zealand First about a Māori being chair of the Waitangi Tribunal or Chief Judge of the Māori Land Court. We have always believed in the best person for the job. The question here is whether those two positions should be held by the same person.

Secondly, I make the comment that New Zealand First has never made any public comment about Chief Judge Joe Williams or about any Māori Land Court judge, and I want that put on record. However, the genesis of this bill lies in the New Zealand First manifesto—that group of pledges we went to the public of New Zealand with, saying we would use whatever means we could to advance those policy platforms.

Our Treaty of Waitangi policy is a comprehensive, thoughtful, and cohesive set of steps that need to be carried through, and the first of these is to remove all references to the principles of the Treaty and associated terms from all legislation and regulations where they exist. I have to say that the bill to that effect, in the name of Doug Woolerton, has already passed its first reading and submissions on it are about to be heard by the Law and Order Committee.

New Zealand First’s second policy platform is to convert the Waitangi Tribunal to a Waitangi Commission. That would create an agency that could advance claims in a more timely way as well as provide the Minister of Finance and the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations with a greater oversight of the functioning of the agency designed to resolve historical grievances. That is how it should be. The Treaty was between the Crown and Māori. The grievances are with the Crown, and Ministers—not a pile of bureaucrats—represent the Crown. The Act would have to be amended to provide the new commission with specificity and focus.

The third part of the trifecta is a pledge to remove the inherent conflict of interest that exists within the Act with the Chief Judge of the Māori Land Court also assuming the role of the chairman of the tribunal. Although there are obvious synergies in combining the two roles, they are clearly outweighed by the inherent, or potential, or maybe just perceived, conflict of interest that occurs between the roles of the Māori Land Court and the tribunal—which would be the commission if we had our way.

I reiterate the comments of my colleague Pita Paraone that this is not a criticism of the person currently in those positions. An independent chairperson will overcome any perception of conflict of interest. He or she will overcome any potential conflict of interest being acted out. It is to be noted that this conflict of interest, which is the subject of this bill, was clearly illustrated in the recent seabed and foreshore issue when the Waitangi Tribunal made recommendations—including recommendations on the role of the Māori Land Court in hearing claims. With one body so clearly impacting on the role of the other and the same individual leading both, a clear conflict of interest could, in fact, be perceived in this particular case.

The bill represents yet another example of New Zealand First keeping the faith with those who voted for us and for our policies. I finish by saying that some talk and some do. New Zealand First is in the latter category.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) Link to this

I rise to speak to the first reading of the Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill. My colleague Chris Finlayson, who led our side of the debate, has already indicated that National will support this bill’s referral to a select committee. We do so not necessarily because we think it has merit but simply because New Zealand First has raised the issue of conflict of interest. New Zealand First calls it an inherent conflict, but we are yet to be convinced that there is an inherent conflict just because there may be a cross-over of people sitting on the tribunal and also chairing it. But we think there may be potential for it, and because we value so highly the unique role the Waitangi Tribunal plays in the settlement of historical injustice, we want to make sure that the integrity of the process is maintained as we go forward and that the integrity of the work the tribunal does is also maintained.

New Zealand First has raised a doubt, and we think it is worth the matter going to a select committee so that it can be debated and so we can see whether this issue is real or whether it is more political and suits the purposes of some to raise it at this time in the parliamentary term. So yes, we support the bill’s referral to the select committee, and that is as far as we go for the moment. We are yet to be convinced of the merit of the bill and we are also yet to be convinced that, as the United Future speaker seemed to say, people are talking about this. I have not heard people talking about this, quite frankly, in the 20 years I have been involved in this process. But anyway, as I say, it is worth debating for the moment.

If New Zealand First was truly concerned about the process, we think there is a greater issue to be addressed, and that is basically the ability of the tribunal to do its work in a timely manner. That is where we think a focus should be, because as it is the tribunal is totally crowded out with work. It does not have enough people to produce reports and it does not have enough people to hear claims. It is not able to sit regularly, and it sometimes has to cancel hearings. We think those are of greater moment to think about than whether there is a perceived, potential, or inherent conflict of interest. It is disappointing, in a way, that although we support this bill going to a select committee, time has to be given to exploring an issue that, in the end, may not turn out to be the issue that New Zealand First says it is.

The other thing is that this is not the only tribunal or judicial body in New Zealand where this kind of crossover occurs, and I hope Pita Paraone who proposes this bill is aware of that. My colleague Chris Finlayson said earlier that High Court judges sit on civil appeal divisions and they also sit on the Environment Court—they are sitting judges—so there is already a crossover, not just in this court and not just in this tribunal. It makes it look like we are picking a little bit on the Māori courts or the Māori-related tribunals. In that regard, I think Metiria Turei does make a point. I would hate for that to go to select committee. I am for open, informed debate on this before the select committee, but I would hate it if this was turned into a witch-hunt about the work of the tribunal and something that marred its undoubted worth to the Treaty settlement process.

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) Link to this

I will take a short call. I find myself in substantial agreement with much of what a number of members have said tonight. I am reassured by Pita Paraone and Brian Donnelly that there is no intention in any way to impugn the integrity of a particular incumbent, and it is good to have that reassurance on the record of the House. I accept unreservedly their assurance that this is a matter of principle and structure rather than any personal witch-hunt, and it is good to have that acknowledged.

Although I affirm the undertaking given that Labour members will support the passage of this bill to the select committee, I think it is equally fair to say that at this stage, like the member who has just resumed her seat, we are not convinced of the merit of the notion of inherent conflict of interest. Points have been made by other speakers this evening about the, I suppose, inevitability, at one level, of conflicts of interest that happen from time to time in a jurisdiction the size of New Zealand. Protocols exist, whether in courts, in tribunals or in other areas of commercial life, and these things are required, all the time, to be in place. So there needs to be an assurance that those protocols are being followed.

One of the things, I would say, that judges have to be particularly mindful of, whether they be on tribunals or in courts, is the perception of conflict of interest. In some ways, that is more difficult to deal with, because perception is one of those grey areas where the notion that someone might not be doing quite the right thing is often more difficult to deal with than a cut and dried case, and this is an issue that I think the select committee can usefully explore.

I think there have been occasions when a judge who presides over a hearing of the tribunal identifies a possible conflict of interest. I remind members, though, that the judge is one of several members of the tribunal who will hear a claim—there is not an individual judge sitting alone—and all members, whether or not they are judges, need to assess whether they have a conflict of interest that might arise in the course of the hearing. On occasions members, including judges, disclose conflicts that can allow parties to request an alternative presiding officer or ask a member to withdraw or file a memorandum, and I think that all these things are perfectly legitimate.

Perhaps a more common example of conflict of interest, especially for presiding officers, is that they may have acted as counsel to one or other of the parties involved in the proceeding at some earlier stage in their career. In these situations, again, the matter is usually resolved in the same way as for other court proceedings.

I say in summary that there is a fair issue here for the select committee to have a careful look at, but certainly the Labour Party is not persuaded that there is an inherent conflict of interest. I will finish as I started. I am reassured—and I think it is good that we have it clearly on the record of the House—by the fact that this bill seeks to explore the question of principle and in no way impugns the integrity of any individual official or judge holding office at this time.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First) Link to this

First of all, I want to reassure this House that the intent of this bill is not to impugn the integrity of anyone, particularly the person who is holding the two positions that this bill refers to. Secondly, I am quite saddened by the fact that the last three members—all of Māori descent—have made, as part of their argument, use of the ethnic background of those people that the Māori Land Court serves. As the House will be aware, when I introduced this bill I made no reference to people being of Māori descent. There was no intent to belittle or deride those people of Māori descent who were indeed clients of the Māori Land Court and the tribunal. I made reference to the word “Māori” only in describing the tribunal and the particular court that this bill is all about. I am really saddened to hear those members defend their arguments by using what we call the race card.

However, I ought to say that given that people obviously recognise that there is, or could be, an inherent conflict of interest, this bill is looking at the use of retired judges. When I say “retired judges”, I have before me information supplied to me by the Attorney-General that shows there is a total of 40—and I say 40—judges who have retired from the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, High Court, District Court, Family Court, Environment Court, Employment Court, and the Māori Land Court over the past 5 years. Quite clearly there is a supply of people who are well qualified to fill the positions that I talk about.

The last speaker from National indicated that National members thought it would be more appropriate to address the issue of the timeliness of settlements. I suggest that if the present chairman of the tribunal was divested of his duties as Chief Judge of the Māori Land Court, then he would be able to provide more time to addressing issues before the tribunal. I heard the concerns expressed by the first speaker from National and I bow to his legal background. I think the questions he raised certainly warrant further investigation. I support his contention and I believe that the select committee I have recommended this bill be referred to would be the place where this matter should be discussed.

This bill does not aim, or intend, to do away with the Treaty of Waitangi as some members of the House who have already spoken are suggesting. This bill is intended to enhance the operation of both the tribunal and the Māori Land Court to ensure that the person who is in charge of these two respective jurisdictions is not confined or limited to the duties of the other position.

This bill is certainly aimed at removing any perception that people might have of any inherent conflict of interest. The last speaker from the Government, the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, made reference to the use of the word “perception”, and I believe that in the wider community, and even amongst Māori, there is a perception of a possible conflict of interest. In the lead up to the passing of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill a senior member of Government made reference to a judge of the Māori Land Court, and said that possibly that judge had had a conflict of interest when making her determination.

I thank those who have supported this bill, and I look forward to seeing it discussed by the appropriate select committee.