Third Readings

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

I move, That the Te Ture Whenua Maori Amendment Bill / Maori Land Amendment Bill, the Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Bill, the Maori Fisheries Amendment Bill, and the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill be now read a third time. This legislation implements Labour’s pledge to introduce a closing date for the submission of historical claims to the Waitangi Tribunal. I will say more about that in a moment.

I would first like to mention the improvements this legislation makes to several Acts that affect Māori and the management of Māori assets. The legislation addresses matters identified as people have worked through the practical application of the provisions of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, the Maori Fisheries Act, and the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act. The changes introduced by this legislation will help to ensure that a sound legal framework and infrastructure are in place. That is needed to assist Māori to manage their assets and effectively and efficiently resolve any disputes that may arise.

Māori are beginning to see the benefits of many years of hard work. There have now been a number of significant Treaty settlements, which provide the iwi concerned with a base on which to rebuild their futures. The fisheries settlement allocation processes are being worked through, as agreed with iwi and set out under the Māori Fisheries Act. Māori have the people, the skills, the leadership, and the determination to make the best possible use of their resources. I see this vitality and vision throughout New Zealand on many of my regional visits. I see it in iwi organisations, I see it in tribal and hapū trusts and incorporations, and I see it in local marae committees. I also see it in the variety of new business enterprises that are being developed from Cape Reinga to Rakiura. All those people are working hard to build a better future for their whānau, hapū, iwi, and all of New Zealand.

It is important that Parliament plays its role by ensuring that the statutory framework is in a good shape to support the endeavours of Māori. That is how Māori purposes bills, such as the bill that these bills were divided from, make useful contributions. They provide an opportunity to address issues, oversights, and errors, and even to provide the simple updating refinements for which a need inevitably arises from time to time in legislation.

Te Ture Whenua Maori Amendment Bill makes a number of changes to ensure that the Māori Land Court is in a position to deal with a changing environment. This environment includes the expanded jurisdiction introduced by recent legislation, such as the Maori Fisheries Act and the Foreshore and Seabed Act. The changes introduced include increasing the maximum number of permanent judges who can be appointed to the Māori Land Court, as and when the court’s workload increases. In addition, the role of the court in fisheries and aquaculture disputes is clarified. Changes are also made to allow the Chief Judge and the Deputy Chief Judge to better share workloads. Those provisions will help to ensure that the Māori Land Court is well positioned to fulfil its full range of responsibilities.

There has been criticism from some quarters of the provision to validate decisions made by an acting judge when he sat for a short time beyond the term of his temporary warrant. This is the most practicable way of fixing a mistake made some years ago. The concern of the Government has been for the individuals and whānau affected by the decisions. It is those people who would have to deal with the consequent uncertainty if the decisions are not validated by statute.

Amendments to the Maori Fisheries Act and the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act will help to ensure that the policy intentions that underpin those Acts are implemented as originally intended.

I come now to the Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Bill, which introduces a closing date for the submission of all historical claims. Labour announced in 2005 that it would introduce a closing date for historical claims. This commitment was made then, and is being implemented now, in the context of a strong and an ongoing commitment to a fair settlements process. It is important for Māori and all of New Zealand that historical Treaty claims are settled as soon as possible. Setting a closing date for submissions will help to identify how many historical claims remain to be settled. That will, in turn, help in planning for the settlement process and for the time when the process is completed.

The settlement of historical claims is of huge significance in New Zealand’s history. I have had the privilege of being present when deeds of settlement have been signed. Those are deeply moving occasions. There is a sense of history being made—of the past touching the present. Settlements are also watersheds for the claimant groups involved and for every New Zealander. It is the time when iwi can turn all their energies and talents towards the future and the opportunities the future offers. It is what makes the years of hard work and hard choices worthwhile. The Government wants to ensure that Māori and all of New Zealand can enjoy the benefits of settling the historical claims. The introduction of a closing date will help to achieve that goal. Contemporary claims relating to events after 21 September 1992 will still be able to be made to the Waitangi Tribunal after the closing date for historical claims.

Before concluding, I would like to thank again the Māori Affairs Committee for its consideration of the Māori Purposes Bill, and also to thank the other organisations involved. I thank all the members of the committee and the individuals who made submissions on the bill. I commend my own ministry, Te PuniKōkiri, and other agencies for their hard efforts and support. I commend this legislation to the House.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) Link to this

I am pleased to stand and speak on the third reading of this legislation. As the Minister has so correctly identified, the original bill amended a number of bills, and the legislation has been divided into its various parts.

In any event, National supports this legislation. It is true that during both the select committee deliberation and the Committee stage we made comments regarding the retrospective legislation that validates certain decisions made by Judge Norman Smith of the Māori Land Court. We also made comments around the increase in the number of judges, from eight to 14, and questioned whether that increase was absolutely necessary. Even though the stated intention of that provision is to assist the Māori Land Court to deal with its increased jurisdiction, so far I do not know that that anticipated increased jurisdiction is showing itself to be the case. But no doubt it may very well be so.

Even though there is to be an increase in the number of judges, the advice from officials that the number will not necessarily go to 14 immediately, in itself gives us an assurance that we will not have courts overloaded with judges, with not enough work or, more so, without the resources to support them. But if there is the anticipated increase in their workload, and if there is a need to fill the 14 positions, then I trust that the Minister over the coming 2 years will make sure there are sufficient resources to support that increase.

On the issue of the closing-off date for the submission of Treaty of Waitangi claims, I heard the Minister say that it was part of the Government’s election brief that it would implement that. I just want to add that National saw the need for such a provision to become part of the Treaty settlement process back in 2002, and we proposed it in our policy then. In 2002, after 10 years of Treaty settlements, it had become very clear to us, even though we were in Opposition, that in order for any Government of the day to be able to plan properly and efficiently for the proper administration of claims, and for the due settlement of claims, at some point in time it would have to have a reasonably clear picture of what lay ahead.

That is only fair, not just to the Government but to the people of New Zealand. It is also fair to claimants, so they know that there is a plan in place and that this will not just happen willy-nilly as claims arise and keep on being filed. So National certainly supports the closing-off date, particularly since it was a policy position of ours at least 4 years ago.

It is important—and I know that the Minister, Parekura Horomia, stated this very clearly—to know that we are talking only about the submission, or lodging, of claims. The provisions in this legislation have no impact whatsoever on when settlement claims might be completed in the future—might finally be concluded. That, we all hope, will still happen in a timely fashion, and the provision for a closing-off date is introduced to assist that. I guess we all hope—mostly for the claimants—that the end is in sight sooner rather than later.

I have to agree with one of the Government speakers yesterday, Dover Samuels. There is a deep wish from Māori to have their claims settled. Yes, they have concerns about some of the processes involved in the settlement of claims, but there is no doubt in my mind, particularly with some of the claims already having been settled—those of NgāiTahu and Tainui back in the 1990s, for instance—that tribes do not want claims settled over a long time frame; they would like them settled now. If we look at what has happened with those tribes that have settled, we see the way they have been able to put grievance behind them, and see into and plan for the future. There is real benefit to everybody in having the claims process properly prepared for and properly managed. As I say, this provision in the legislation for a closing-off date is a very important part of that process.

I suppose I support the comments the Minister made about the efficient functioning of the Māori Land Court, which the provisions in this legislation are designed to assist. It is true that so much of Māori Land Court activity either helps or hinders our people in the efficient management of their assets—their land assets and, more recently, their fisheries assets. But let us hope that not too many disputes go to the Māori Land Court, and that Māori, in their wisdom, will find ways to be more consultative with each other and avoid the waste of time, energy, and money. There is cost—there will always be a need for lawyers, no doubt. Lawyers manage to find their way into most activities. Let us hope Māori can avoid all of that time and cost, and can settle any disputes in a more cooperative fashion.

I agree that proper functioning of the courts, to enable iwi and Māori communities to manage their assets properly, is crucial. It is crucial to the development of our people in going forward. Like the Minister, we all go around the country constantly and see what is happening in our Māori communities, and what we find is just great. I have to say that sometimes, despite legislation, Māori manage to move forward anyway. If these provisions help them to do that better, then that is absolutely wonderful.

I add a note that although I support the Minister’s comments about the businesses, our people’s enterprises, and all of those things that are occurring—they are happening—I say that development also includes education, skill acquisition, and the whole variety of activities our people are involved in. The Minister should keep in mind that none of those are being affected by this legislation before us today. In terms of underachievement in Māori communities, I tell members that at least 20 to 30 percent of our people are not in any way at all constructively, one could say, participating in our economy and in New Zealand society. That is an indictment on the Labour Government that has been in power for 7 years, and that actually has done very little to address the problems of that segment of our people.

Thankfully, businesses will grow because our people are getting a lot smarter and more knowledgable about managing their assets. But the input of the Government, and of the Minister of Māori Affairs in particular, has been lacking in solutions in areas such as, say, South Auckland and other parts of New Zealand, where too many of our children are living in homes that do not let them see any light towards a productive adulthood. The Minister should turn his attention to these things in the coming year, and he should have a good think about them over the Christmas holidays. Let us see what he comes up with to ensure that the issues of that grouping of our people are addressed, and that those who are successful at their businesses go ahead and become even better.

DAVE HEREORA (Labour) Link to this

I take this opportunity to take a call in the third reading of this Māori purposes legislation. As chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, I intend to share some of the views formed by members in their deliberation and consideration of this legislation.

I move toward the issues surrounding the validation of decisions and the concern raised by, in particular, National members about that validation being retrospective. I suppose that the questions we pondered on were, to some degree, about the fairness of those decisions, given that the judge at the time did not realise he was making those decisions without the appropriate warrant, and about whether there was justification to further that concern by sharing it with those affected by those decisions. There was quite a lengthy debate—and that is reflected in National’s view in the commentary—but the majority of members focused specifically on the fact that those decisions were done in good faith, and that the issues from the subsequent validation, which arose from those decisions that did affect people in the transfer of land have moved on since then.

To open up that can of worms would have been too negative, simply because, at the end of the day, the validation would give these people some certainty, and enable them to continue with their lives without the disruption and possible costs that could otherwise result. I believe that the consensus of the committee concerning that issue—that we proceed, under that bill, to validate—was the proper one.

I acknowledge that that part of the amendment increases the number of judges from eight to 14, it also clarifies the procedure and discretion of the Māori Land Court in relation to its jurisdiction under the Maori Fisheries Act, and it provides for the Chief Judge duties to be carried out by the Deputy Chief Judge. There was some consensus from committee members in endorsing the position of that particular amendment.

On the issues surrounding the cut-off date, we received in all about 20 submissions. There were mixed feelings in relation to support and non-support of this particular issue. Quite rightly, the matter of the cut-off date was a policy that Labour had led into the previous election with. The cut-off date for the submission of historical Treaty claims is 1 September 2008, and that gives us another 20 months’ lead-in. There is still a lot of time for iwi and groups to submit their historical claims.

MetiriaTurei raised yesterday that she felt a better date would be 2050. But, at the end of the day, I think this policy is about setting up a time frame so that preparations can be made and claimant groups can be confident that their claim, once it is heard, has the appropriate historical data. I think if we left it until 2050, that would just be extending the time out unnecessarily. This part of the amendment is about getting to a point so that people can move on, deal with their future, and just get on with things.

Let us be reminded that the provision does not prevent a historical claim submitted on or before 1 October from being amended in any way after 1 September 2008. I think that is a point to be raised. It is primarily designed to ensure that the claims are submitted before September 2008, but if there is any amendment that claimant groups consider beyond the date of 2008, they are still entitled to make those amendments. I think that will be helpful as we move into those changes.

Another area of change is to do with the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act. Clause 27 of the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill amends section 20 by restricting the definition of pre-commencement space to include areas subject to permits for exclusive occupation of space for aquaculture activities, including spat gathering, but to exclude areas subject to permits for free gathering of spat. That had been an ongoing issue that was raised with the committee on many occasions, and this amendment comes a long way towards addressing those concerns.

Clause 22 of the Maori Fisheries Amendment Bill inserts a heading and new sections into the Maori Fisheries Act. These sections provide prospectivity for the adjustment of the recorded number of quota shares if there is a reduction in the number available through the application of section 23 of the Act. We heard quite an extensive submission from Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd in relation to the disparity caused by the Maori Fisheries Act, in that, based on the criteria, their allocation to iwi was substantially reduced. There was a real need to make that adjustment to give some satisfaction that the iwi groups were getting their appropriate allocation.

Throughout the discussion the matter was also raised, in relation to the stocks of red crab, that the definition for inner-coastal and outer-coastal needed to be addressed, as well. Furthermore, the amendments ensure that the legislation reflects the necessary quota changes and balances that up. So the validation on any applications made under section 157 of the Maori Fisheries Act by Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd before the commencement of the bill, and any registration effected by the chief executive under section 152, must be treated as having been made or effected in compliance with the reduced number of quota shares provided for by the amendments made in the schedule.

Finally, I think it is appropriate that I acknowledge the work that committee members have exercised in their consideration of this legislation. It was good to see a committee that was genuinely working together to try to achieve the best outcome. I also acknowledge the quality advice that we heard from all officials and assistants. I commend these bills to the House.

Hon TAU HENARE (National) Link to this

While everybody is being very, very nice to the Minister of Māori Affairs, let me break with tradition.

Nobody had a problem with the amendments in the original bill, the Māori Purposes Bill, to the Maori Fisheries Amendment Act and the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act—those were basically agreed with within about 5 or 10 minutes. There was some interesting discussion about the issue of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 specifying a closing date for claims. I, for one, my colleague Georgina te Heuheu, and the other members of the National Party think it is imperative we do have a closing-off date—not so that we get the issue out of our minds, but so that both parties are pushed along the road to quick and sustainable settlements. National had absolutely no problem in supporting the introduction of a closing date. Certainly, claimants will be allowed to amend submitted claims up to and including 1 September 2008. I am sure a number of people who have already submitted claims to the Waitangi Tribunal will take another look at and amend their claims.

The issue for me was the validation of decisions made by former Deputy Chief Judge Norman Smith. The Minister of Māori Affairs said in his third reading speech—I am not sure whether he remembers it—that the judge served only a short time, and he basically gave the impression that it was not too much of a to-do. But 80-odd cases were heard by the judge, who did not have a warrant. The Minister got up in the House and said that the Government’s main concern was for those whom the decisions affected. Well, all I can say is “Yeah, right!”. If that were the case, then the Minister would have got off his frame, tracked down every one of those people who were involved in those cases, and had the decency to tell those people—regardless of whether the decisions were right or wrong in law—

RON MARK (NZ First) Link to this

I rise to speak on behalf of New Zealand First in the third readings of the bills from the Māori Purposes Bill. I rise to deliver a speech—and I hope I do so faithfully—on behalf of my colleague Pita Paraone.

The Māori Purposes Bill was duly considered by the Māori Affairs Committee and it proposed amendments to the following Acts: the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, the Maori Fisheries Act 2004, Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993, and the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004. A number of submissions were made by members of the public, many of whom expressed their opposition to the amendment to the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 setting a closing date for the lodgment and submission of historical Treaty claims to the Waitangi Tribunal. Some submitters expressed concern that there had not been an opportunity for consultation with iwi and hapū about this matter, and others submitted that there be no closing date. Of course, the date the legislation has identified as the closing date for the submission of historical claims is 1 September 2008.

The setting of a time frame by which claims should be lodged is something we in New Zealand First support. In fact, it is the policy of our party, notwithstanding that some other parties claim a similar policy. Indeed, as we now know through the publication of that great exposé entitled The Hollow Men, we now have proof of what we knew all along—and what some National members have privately confessed—that the National Party had simply been plagiarising New Zealand First policy manifestoes. As the old warhorse Murray McCully said one day, half in jest, half in sincerity, National was simply conducting its research off the New Zealand First website in preparation for the forthcoming election. It is all history now. Don Brash has done his dash and we are moving on.

It is important for those wishing to make claims to know that this amendment is about the lodgment of claims only. It is not about when claims will be settled, or about applications needing to be fully researched before their lodgment—and I recall Pita Paraone making that point during the Committee stage. It is about the closing date for claims being lodged, not for their settlement. New Zealand First would be concerned if the date were the date for claims to be settled by, as it would raise the issue of whether there is bureaucratic capacity to handle that. Just as important, it could affect the durability of the settlement, not least the quality of the settlement, and I want to make that point very, very clear.

What is a historical claim? This legislation defines that as one that relates to events that occurred prior to 21 September 1992—the date on which the then National Government decided the principles to be used for the settling of historical claims. Of course, the principles referred to should not be confused with those principles that New Zealand First members have sought to have deleted from legislation by way of a member’s bill sponsored by our colleague Doug Woolerton.

During the Committee stage it was proposed by the Greens that the date of 21 September 1992 be altered to 1 January 1841. Of course, that was their attempt to nullify the intent of the bill. I do not question the Greens’ sincerity as to why they oppose the 1992 date or why they want that other date to be inserted—we just have a differing view.

We also heard from the Māori Party in the course of this debate. As an argument not to support this legislation, Māori members in the House were asked to indicate whether they thought our tūpuna who had signed the Treaty would have done so if they had known there would be a cut-off date for the lodging of claims. I recall that speech—I heard it on the radio. Members were asked to put up their hands if they agreed. There are a couple of simple points. Firstly—I ask members to forgive me—the Treaty that our tūpuna were asked to sign was not about claims. Let me go one step further than the notes that my honourable colleague has written here. At the time the Treaty was signed there were no breaches, for the Treaty had not been signed—let alone there not having been the opportunity to breach it. Secondly, there were no protocols or procedures by which people could have lodged a claim against a breach. So the questions put in debate were spurious and nonsensical.

New Zealand First has the view that support for this part of the legislation will allow us as a nation—and that includes Māori—to move forward as a nation with more certainty than we would have without this legislation. It will also allow our descendants not to be locked into a time warp that sees them forever in grievance mode, as some members in this House would have them be. Indeed, we suspect some members in this House want that grievance mode to remain because it gives them a reason to continue to be here.

Similarly, we in New Zealand First recognise the need for the appointment of more judges for the Māori Land Court in order to deal with, in a more timely fashion, the extra work that recent legislation will bring to bear on the court. We have always said that—Winston Peters has always said that. We will, therefore, support this provision as well. Similarly, we support the Chief Judge in the Māori Land Court having the authority to delegate his or her existing power, function, or duty to the Deputy Chief Judge. In November 2000 the then Deputy Chief Judge of the Māori Land Court operated after his warrant had expired. This legislation seeks to validate court orders made by that learned judge, and it is an eminently sensible thing to do, given the situation we are now faced with.

Although approximately 80 different orders were involved, we in New Zealand First do not subscribe to the notion that those affected by those orders have had their rights to justice interfered with, as alleged by some who oppose the legislation. Our support is founded on the advice that the validation of these orders will not affect the ability of parties to make an application under the principal Act if a mistake or omission is found, or thought to have been found, and on the knowledge that had there been concern at the time of making these orders, the affected parties held the ability to seek a rehearing and/or appeal of the decision at the time.

My colleague Pita Paraone notes that amendments to the Maori Fisheries Act 2004 and the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004 will help give true intent to these original settlements by the alteration of quota management areas, and will reclassify red crab stocks.

I conclude by adding to the comments of my colleague who sat on the select committee. There are varying comments and differing views on this legislation; that is clear. We all stand here as members of Parliament for our respective parties, which are built and based on differing philosophies, differing views, differing policies, and differing ideologies, to support those people who vote for us. We are different. We have different views. Of the speeches I heard, I commend my whanaunga MetiriaTurei and the Greens for their views that they have expressed eloquently. We simply differ in our opinions. I commend them for the honesty and sincerity of the arguments they have put forward.

I add to my colleague’s comments by saying that we in New Zealand First sincerely believe that we need to give the nation the security of knowing when claim lodgments will come to an end. We look forward to the day when we, as a nation, start looking forward rather than looking in our rear-view mirror at our history. We must never forget our history, and we must learn from it, but we must not live there, we must not dwell there, for that, above all, will retard our progress forward.

METIRIA TUREI (Green) Link to this

The Green Party will not support any kind of race-hate agenda. The National Party has promoted a race-hate agenda. The Labour Government is enacting this agenda in this legislation, and every party that supports this legislation supports that agenda. The Green Party does not, and we will oppose this legislation.

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) Link to this

As a new MP I have used this first year to familiarise myself with the separation of powers between the judiciary, the executive, and the legislature. I have immersed myself in parliamentary business and taken every opportunity to develop my craft. In the process of updating my knowledge of protocols and conventions I came across a masterpiece. The author was Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville, the book was Democracy in America, and the point was the moral power of the majority. Over a century ago, in 1835, de Tocqueville released a classic publication that described democracy as tending to devolve towards a tyranny of the majority. In simple terms, the book describes the situation in which a majority might use its strength in Government to ride roughshod over the rights of minorities. The idea of a tyranny of the majority implies that the number of legislators is more important than their quality. The next stage of the sequence is the tyranny of the legislature, which suffers from exposure to the whims of the majority.

Last night this Parliament saw the force of de Tocqueville’s teachings enacted through the means of the original Māori Purposes Bill. Clause by clause the Green Party and the Māori Party rose to recommend that specific problematic clauses of this bill be deleted or amended. Clause by clause the moral majority ruled the amendments out of order or voted them down, one by one.

The original Māori Purposes Bill contained a raft of provisions of fundamental importance for tangata whenua and, indeed, for the future of our nation as we consider the impact of this legislation upon our obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The central sticking point of this whole theatre was Part 2 of the original bill, which inflicted changes to the Treaty of Waitangi Act, and imposed an arbitrary definition of a historical claim and a final lodging date for historical claims. These interventions would impact widely, but there was no consultation with the Māori partners to the Treaty.

The arbitrary and politically contrived imposition of a final submission date for historical claims, without prior discussion with, and agreement from, Māori parties to the Treaty, is yet another, if not the most severe, example of a Government prepared to run roughshod over Māori for any price—indeed, for the price of Government. That election promise of plucking a date out of the air and saying “That’s it!” will neither enhance nor diminish opportunities for Māori to complete settlements of Treaty claims, but it will have a significant impact on the Crown’s obligations to Māori under the Treaty. It is a case of one partner—the Crown—imposing the rule of law of its parliamentary majority over the other, the Māori, which is a classic example of “might is right”.

There is an obvious risk that to effect change in any part of the current responsibilities under the Treaty without being aware of the consequences to the whole would entail further erosion of the status of Māori and the protection of Māori interests. The Māori Party believes that any and every action of the Crown that affects our capacity to enact the Treaty must be discussed and shared with both partners to the Treaty. The courts have found that an aspect of the Treaty obligation to act in good faith is a duty to make informed decisions through consultation.

The Waitangi Tribunal has also emphasised the value and utility of consultation in upholding and strengthening the Treaty partnership. So it would seem that we are all singing off the same song sheet. It is critical that informed debate and proper process should occur, to accord due respect to the very constitutional framework within which Aotearoa sits. We believe that consultation should have taken place to ensure that tangata whenua were able to come to the table as equals, empowered to discuss the implications without having to face a hasty and predetermined position dreamt up by officials.

So exactly what does this Government believe constitutes consultation on this legislation coming from the Māori Purposes Bill? There were 20 submissions; that was its scale. So we wrote to the Minister of Māori Affairs and we met with the Minister of Māori Affairs—the “Minister of No Change”. When we turned to those 20 submissions, we read that the overwhelming—18 out of 20 submissions—and consistent message from the public was to demand consultation with tangata whenua about the proposed changes. During the select committee hearings I therefore sought leave for Part 2 of the original bill to be put to the side until consultation had occurred. Leave was denied. Well, we are a resolute bunch, so undeterred by another rejection we came to this House armed with amendments to omit Part 2, to omit clauses 16 and 18, and even to put up a compromise position to omit the final closing date of “1 September 2008” and to substitute “after 1 September 2020”.

My colleague Te Ururoa Flavell, speaking in te reo Māori, urged Parliament to consider, in the interests of due justice and the pursuit of nationhood, that talking with the Treaty partner was a very good starting point for progress. The member for Te Tai Tokerau stood and asked all Māori present in the Chamber to raise their hands if they thought their tipuna believed there would be a date imposed for lodging claims to Treaty settlements. No hands were raised. That vote was ruled out of order. Another vote was put, but voted down. There were 107 votes opposed, and 10 in support. Over and over again the tyranny of the majority overpowered Treaty justice.

It was not just on the sections pertaining to the Treaty of Waitangi Act that the axe fell. We turned our attention towards the procedures and discretion of the Māori Land Court, as provided for in the revisions of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. I want to correct the myth that the Māori Land Court is somehow a vehicle for privileging Māori in their own court. Indeed, according to Sir Hugh Kāwharu it is far from being our own court. He said it is “a veritable engine of destruction for any tribe’s tenure of land, anywhere”. Like this very Parliament, the Māori Land Court will always be haunted by the shame of its role in facilitating the Crown purchase and confiscation of Māori land, back in the 1860s. Despite that history, however, the Māori Land Court today now has exceptional talent and expertise serving on its bench. We proposed an amendment, therefore, that would have enabled judges appointed to the Māori Land Court to preside also in the District Court, if agreed to by the Chief Judge of the Māori Land Court. Again, the amendment was overturned—ruled out of court, so to speak.

The Government’s extraordinarily weak consultation on this legislation was deplorable. What is wrong with talking with the people? Why will the Government not consult fairly? This is colonial behaviour, over and over again. Everything is totally manipulated to suit the majority in this House, without regard to an authentic view from Māori. The fact is that the Treaty settlement process is a complete farce, and this legislation will make it even more so. Plonking a rigid deadline into this context assumes that people are resourced and able to identify themselves with a Wai claim by 2008, with little or no evidence to justify that. Every solution and every compromise that we and the Green Party have submitted to this House has been squashed under the tyranny of the majority. But the tyranny of legislation will not proceed unhampered.

We mourn this day as yet another when justice has been denied and, come the next election, we will inform the Māori people of how the Māori members of the Government voted. We will not have to indulge in spin, as they will no doubt have to. All we will have to do is give the people a copy of Hansard, and they will be able to see it for themselves. Thank you.

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

I rise on behalf of United Future to speak to the third readings of the bills arising from the Māori Purposes Bill. United Future does not enjoy representation on the Māori Affairs Committee; therefore we have had to rely on the report from the select committee and discussions with committee members.

When I read the early draft of the original bill, I was not surprised at what turned out to be its controversial part. It sort of jumped out at me. However, United Future has always supported the establishment of a closing date for lodging claims. Perhaps our only question regarding this provision was about the time frame being a little shorter than we personally would have recommended. Our policy talked about it being 2010. I have talked to members of the select committee and asked them whether, in the current environment, they feel 2008 is a fair date. I was assured, certainly by National and Labour MPs, that they feel comfortable with that being established as the date.

We certainly support the provisions to build the capacity of the Māori Land Court. We think that is a noble idea and should be advanced. We also support the clearer definition that is now going to be given as to what constitutes historical claims. We are pleased about the added definition in that area, and also that the closing date does not preclude current claims having amendments made to them. I think that is a necessary provision. We do, of course, support the amendments to both the Maori Fisheries Act and the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act.

I did not intend to take a long call, but I just want to say that I personally believe in the contemporary relevance of the Treaty. I feel that until we as a nation address historical grievances it will be very difficult to convince a large number of our citizens of that fact. United Future continues to support any move by the Government to better resource the work of the tribunal to enable greater self-determination for those iwis still awaiting settlement. We support this bill.

SHANE JONES (Labour) Link to this

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Obviously, I arise to support the inevitable passage of this legislation. There are three things I would like us to bear in mind. This legislation is a statement of how difficult, challenging, but inevitably rewarding it is to be progressive.

First, I heard earlier this afternoon the concerns of our colleagues in the Māori Party, who talked in very florid—should I say, treacherous—language about tyranny. I say to them: “Do not come to this House and use the language of tyranny when you refuse to stand and oppose, but rather condone, the coup in Fiji. And do not dress up that double standard with the language of indigenous rights. That brings into dispute the proud tradition of our tūpuna in relation to the Treaty—the proud tradition that we as celebrators of the democratic franchise have fought for, held, and celebrated in this House every day. There is no tyranny in Aotearoa that you can speak of if you tolerate the tyranny we are seeing through the barrel of a gun in Fiji.”

Secondly, this legislation states the inevitable. The inevitable is claims for compensation, because historical grievances are drawing to an end. The focus of our young people and the leadership of each tribe must be on how to enlarge the pie for all New Zealanders. What stirring of pride there was for the brief period of time when we saw the potential of the great stadium that was never to be—and could not be—called Stadium Aotearoa. That is the sort of vision that this legislation is based on. It is not one that locks us into constantly arguing about the ills of colonialism; it is one that says we must rise above that bout of historical discord and focus on our role in the globe. We will never go there by listening to dated, tedious, predictable speeches that lack inspiration, originality, and freshness, and that are undermined by double standards and a willingness to condone the coup of Fiji.

The third thing is that this legislation will provide a very good choice for the voters in a couple of years’ time. I doubt whether those members will actually be back because, as a consequence of their shoddy and very disappointing speeches in this House, there will, in my view, be one less Māori seat rather than one more.

This legislation is the seed for the future—an end to discord, an investment in the future. This will free our young people from that tripe we hear every day about colonialism and grievance, breeding a festering sore in the minds of our young people that somehow by dwelling on the injustices of history we will have a brighter future. Kia ora tātou katoa.