11. GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) Link to this
to the Minister of Maori Affairs
Is he the Minister responsible for the Māori Purposes Bill introduced on Tuesday, 13 June?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA Link to this
There are several technicalities in relation to the retrospective decisions that need to be made in relation to a whole lot of other issues, and the member knows that.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. If I knew, I would not have asked the question. What about an answer?
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
If the member is now implying it is an undertaking of the Opposition members that they never ask questions if they know the answer to them, that is going to be a very interesting matter to consider in the future. [ Interruption]
Madam SPEAKERI ask members to settle down. We are nearly through question time, but I cannot hear members if they keep laughing and chattering amongst themselves. We have a point of order where I think Mr Brownlee is asking that the Minister further addresses the question. Would the Minister like to further address it.
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA Link to this
Certainly the bill is about time limits on historical claims, and that party knows about that. It is about retrospective validation of court orders. It is about changes to the Māori Land Court, and changes to the Maori Fisheries Act and the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act. I am sorry that the member did not know that.
Dave HereoraHon PAREKURA HOROMIA Link to this
The Māori Purposes Bill is an omnibus piece of legislation. It provides tidy-up amendments that do not warrant enactment as separate amendment Acts. It can also validate and authorise matters of a private or public nature relating to Māori.
How many cases did Judge Norman F Smith make decisions on or preside over without proper delegation or a warrant, and why is he so keen to validate his decisions against the rights of those who lost those cases?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA Link to this
Judge Smith is an experienced judge, and it is recognised that he is able to make those decisions. There were 88 decisions in that sense, and I remind that member very clearly that this issue is not just of this year. This is not the first time that legislation has been introduced to validate decisions made in the Māori Land Court. I understand that the National Government introduced legislation in 1991 to validate the decisions of deputy judge Ashley McHugh. Does the member remember that?
Does he agree that a court, with no right or warrant to do so, can or should deprive people of their customary or ancestral rights; if not, why is he advancing retrospective legislation to do just that?
The Speaker is not involved in this matter. Would the Minister rephrase his answer and maybe add to it a little.
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA Link to this
As those members do understand past Government history, I say it is for the same reason that the National Government did that in the 1990s. They should ask John Luxton, or ask Mr Kidd. I was going to say they should ask Mr Tau Henare, but he did not do much.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The question related to the Minister’s own view of things. For him to simply turn round and say that last time we were in Government we operated a similar shonky sort of policy that had to be fixed up after we went out of office is not acceptable. I want to know whether he thinks it is right and fair for people to have had their rights deprived by a court that had no authority.
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA Link to this
This Government is about putting wrongs right. It certainly is about changes in the court, and ensuring that the decisions are put beyond doubt and not left there wobbling, like you people left them.
Does he have confidence in the Chief Judge of the Māori Land Court now that he knows the chief judge has not even understood the law that gives his court the authority to act?
Can he tell the House why it is a necessity in this day and age to put an extra six judges into the Māori Land Court, and can he be confident that the current chief justice of the Māori Land Court, now that his appalling record of administration is exposed, is capable of handling such a large court?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA Link to this
It has been a pleasure, certainly, to be part of this Government over the last 6 years. The Māori fisheries legislation and the settlement of the aquacultural issues means that there is a lot more work. If those people understood the better side of the economy—that Māori are taking their rightful place—they would know that is what this business is about. There is a lot more business about us going forward, not backwards or downwards as that party would want us to be.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That question was entirely about the extra judges, and the confidence that the Minister may have in the Chief Judge of the Māori Land Court. He may want to say that regular appearances in court by Māori are part of the progress this Government wants for them, but that does not actually address the question that was asked of him.
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA Link to this
I have the utmost faith in the judiciary of this country—as a New Zealander, but firstly as a Māori.
Te Ururoa Flavell Link to this
Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa. Given that the Māori Purposes Bill seeks to validate decisions made without legal mandate, does that mean the Minister supports the Native Land (Validation of Titles) Act of 1893, which Moana Jackson has described as “validating the illegal acquisition of Māori land”; if so, why?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA Link to this
This Government is about putting things right. Certainly, I respect a lot of the things that Moana—[ Interruption] I am so sorry that we have some trolls in this House; they are in the wrong water. Certainly, there needs to be some correction in these courts. Some people want to lock Māoridom and believe that Māori are not there, and we are not about that. I do not agree with Moana’s point at the end of where he is.
Te Ururoa Flavell Link to this
Will the Minister carry out extensive consultation with whānau, hapū, iwi, and Māori organisations, given that this bill has a significant impact on Māori, or will that be considered a tedious and tiresome exercise?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA Link to this
Yes, and I agree with Dr Sharples when he said in August 2005: “It is in the country’s best interests that we move forward in these claims and the issues in this proposed bill, and it is settled as fast as possible to remove the negativity.”