Statutes Amendment Bill

Dr Pita Sharples, Co-leader, Maori Party

Thursday 1 March 2007; 5.00pm

It is good to be able to come to this House and feel that we have been consulted on this piece of legislation; our concerns have been taken into account, and as a consequence, we are happy to support the Bill going forward.

During the consultation and korero leading up to the tabling of this Statutes Amendment Bill, we identified points of concern and potential controversy associated with a total of ten of the sixty two different Acts originally proposed for inclusion in this Bill.

Of those initial ten, we note that the concerns we had around six of these amendments have been considered of sufficient bearing to require that they be removed from the Bill being discussed today.

In the Fisheries Acts, for the record, may I just note that some of our more substantial concerns were to do with amendments to the

- Fisheries Act 1996

- The Maori Fisheries Act 2004; and

- the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975.

It is important for this House to know that our concerns around the proposed changes to fishing quotas, and the effect of registering settlement quota interest against quota shares, fall within the wider concerns related to the rights of tangata whenua to be consulted.

The Explanatory Notes to the Fisheries Act amendments advised that people with a direct interest in the amendments had been consulted, and were in support.

But our interest was piqued, when we never heard back from the Minister or his office, when we asked the simple question : “were iwi included in this consultation process”? We presume that the answer must be NO, given that the proposed amendments are now removed from this Bill.

The issue, purely and simply, is one of due process. And yet again, this Government failed to abide by the process that they expect all others to follow.

Forestry

Another key area of concern that we had was related to the Forests Amendment Act 1996. We sought further information about the implications that may arise from the amendment, for Maori ownership rights to forest produce, including carbon credits. We were also keen to understand the implications for Maori rights in relation to Crown forests on, or potentially on, Maori land.

Again, no response. Interesting.

I began this call however, by introducing a good news story to the debate, and I want in this light, to commend the Rt Hon Winston Peters, in particular, for his comprehensive response to the concerns we raised about four different Acts.

Racing

In his capacity as the Minister for Racing, Mr Peters listened to our concerns regarding the proposed amendment to allow an alternate person to serve on the nomination advisory panel as part of the process for appointing independent members to the New Zealand Racing Board.

The Maori Party was concerned that this may create an awkward precedent, which could result in difficulties in maintaining communication, particularly if the goal was to ensure continuity of representation. We were also concerned about the increased pressure this may place on tangata whenua nominees to guarantee consistent representation.

In discussion with the Minister, we were able to resolve our concerns and so the amendment to the Racing Act 2003 will proceed.

Cook Islands Act 1915, Niue Act 1966, Tokelau Act 1948

The other group of Acts that we sought clarification around were the amendments as they related to the Cook Islands, Niue and Tokelau Acts and associated regulations.

Mr Speaker, as someone who has lived in the Tokelau Islands for a period of nine months; spent many, many years in and out of the Cook Islands; and who have developed strong relationships with Niuean peoples in Auckland; I have more than a passing interest in ensuring that the needs of Pasifika peoples are respected and taken into account.

The material received on these statutes stated that the amendments are a complex project.

We were of a united view, that no matter how complex the project it was essential to ensure that the respective governments of the Cook Islands, Niue and Tokelau had been advised and consulted on the amendments. Again, it is a matter of due process.

In the response we received from the Minister we received his assurance that the repeals would not compromise the Cook Islands, Niue or Tokelau; that their local laws would not change (except at the request of Tokelau); and nor would there be any interference with the constitutional status of those nations and their unique relationships with Aotearoa.

He also informed us that the respective governments of these countries would be duly advised of the changes being made to our law books before the Bill was tabled.

And yet, there is still more.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs went the extra mile to identify the quality expertise that had been made available to him on this matter, specifically crediting Professor Tony Angelo for his work with aspects of the law in Tokelau and Niue; Alison Quentin-Baxter, for her work; MFAT legal advisors and the Parliamentary Counsel Office.

Mr Speaker, just a single letter or a confidential briefing was all that was required, to be able to discuss and consider the implications and ramifications of the proposed legislative amendments.

I can not help but contrast that with various statements that have arisen out of the mouths of other Ministers over this last month – suggesting that actions taken by tangata whenua account to anarchy, are silly, ridiculous, or verging on hysteria.

We have been told, that in presenting the views of Maori, our advocacy is inappropriate, very irresponsible and surprising.

Other Ministers have admitted that they have not been briefed on the key issues for Maori.

The Prime Minister has told Maori, that repossessing their lands in their endeavours to be heard, is not the way to get things done.

Just yesterday, another Minister responded to my question in the House about consultation processes by implying this was achieved by consulting another arm of Government, namely Te Puni Kokiri.

Mr Speaker, this House needs to recognise that consultation with Maori does not mean talking to itself.

Consultation with Maori does not mean their ideas are dismissed or ridiculed; the people attacked.

Consultation with Maori does not mean they are ignored, their issues denied.

Consultation requires the Crown to listen, to learn, to be involved in dialogue and debate.

Mr Speaker, the Maori Party will continue to put forward the concerns and priorities of Maori – no matter how uncomfortable or how surprised Ministers may be to hear them. We are here to do our very best, to ensure that a strong and independent Maori voice with influence is present in this debating chamber.

And we will do so now, heartened by the response of Mr Peters, who has given us confidence that at least one Minister will enable an opportunity for people to participate – for voices to be heard – for due access to justice to be part of the political process.

And we're looking forward to that Minister's openness to tangata whenua voices extending to the United Nation's Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples when it comes back to the General Assembly for voting later this year.

ENDS

© Scoop Media