9. GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) Link to this
to the Minister of Maori Affairs
What are the “whole lot of other issues” he was referring to when he said: “There are several technicalities in relation to the retrospective decisions that need to be made in relation to a whole lot of other issues”?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs) Link to this
The Māori Purposes Bill 2006 addresses a range of technical issues. It retrospectively validates certain decisions made by Māori Land Court judges since the 1980s. These validations will provide certainty and clarity.
Can the Minister recall telling the House last week that the appointment of six more judges to the Māori Land Court was all about the economy, and can he tell us what sorts of economic indicators we should look to in the future to evaluate the performance of the judiciary on the Māori Land Court?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA Link to this
Because Māori have more assets and resources to manage, we need to ensure that the judges’ workloads are catered for, and that is the economic part of this bill.
Dave HereoraWhy does the Minister think it is important to make the amendments provided for in the Māori Purposes Bill 2006?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA Link to this
It is important that legislation that governs Māori assets has clear provisions for accessing, allocating, and managing those assets. It is also important that the status of decisions made by the court are not in doubt.
Why do we need this bill if the Minister was correct in the House last week in saying that the 83 cases dealt with by Judge Norman F Smith, when he had no warrant, were recognised as decisions he was able to make?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA Link to this
Judge Smith sat for 10 days, over the period of a month, in excess of his warrant. It is important that we have those decisions validated.
Te Ururoa Flavell Link to this
Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Would one of the other issues that needs to be addressed respond to the concerns of Sir Hugh Kāwharu, chairman of Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei, who recently stated: “the Crown … will not accept that one acre of land in the Kaipara or in Invercargill has a different value to an acre of land in the Auckland CBD”; if not, why not?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA Link to this
We have a Treaty settlement process but certainly this is about those sorts of issues within the Māori Land Court.
When the Minister said in the House that this Government is about putting wrongs right, did he mean that his definition of right is to ensure that judges can deprive people of their customary or ancestral rights without any warrant to do so?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA Link to this
Most definitely not. I want to remind that member that it is not the first time that legislation has been introduced to validate decisions in the Māori Land Court. I understand that the National Government introduced legislation in 1991 to validate the decisions of Deputy Chief Judge McHugh.
When he said in the House that the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act “provides tidy-up amendments that do not warrant enactment as separate amendment Acts” did he mean that requiring all Māori to lodge Treaty claims within 2 years or forgo redress from historical grievance was a matter of such minor importance that it did not require a larger debate?
Phil HeatleyCould the Minister explain the matrix of dysfunction of the explanatory note relating to Part 4 of his Māori Purposes Bill—what it means 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.”?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA Link to this
I do not recall using the words “matrix of dysfunctionalism”; that member may be having a lapse. The definition in the Act inadvertently includes free spat-gathering permits that do not involve the exclusive occupation of coastal space. There are two permits involved.