Franks Stephen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Franks Stephen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:615;Page:10945] 
1. STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she agree with the Deputy Prime Minister that fear of a damaging response “in the international courts” will hold Dr Don Brash back from doing what the Orewa speech indicates; if not why did she not correct the Hon Dr Michael Cullen’s statement after he made it on the day of the speech? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Dr Cullen actually said there would be a damaging response to ripping up the treaty both within New Zealand and in the international courts. While strictly speaking it might be more accurate to refer to international fora such as the UN Human Rights Committee I agree entirely with the tenor of Dr Cullen’s remarks. 
Stephen Franks 
: As she has agreed with Dr Cullen’s remarks does she believe that those international fora can interfere with block or overturn laws passed by this democratically elected Parliament; if she does what kinds of laws could they not interfere with? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As the member knows the Parliament of this country is sovereign. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Does the Prime Minister think that unelected judges should be able to overturn laws passed by this elected House; if she does not why does she not tell New Zealand that she does not agree with Dr Cullen’s statement? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I repeat that Parliament is sovereign but there appears to be a view on the other side of the House that the Crown should not uphold undertakings it has given courts. It gave courts an undertaking in respect of the transfer of television assets that it would introduce Maori television. That is what those politicians opposite want to do away with and that draws into question their commitment to the rule of law in this country. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Noting that the Prime Minister and other members of the Labour Party have been trying to tell New Zealanders that Dr Don Brash cannot introduce some of the reforms he has proposed in his speeches so far will she tell the House if Parliament is sovereign on what basis would any court question the legality of Dr Brash’s reforms once they are passed by Parliament? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is not a question of a court overruling an Act of Parliament. A New Zealand court cannot do that. But I believe there would be a serious constitutional crisis in this country if the Crown were to dishonour its own commitments to a court. What I say without fear of contradiction is that when the Crown sought to transfer television assets to the State-owned enterprise a claim was brought to the court under the provisions of the State-Owned Enterprises Act. The court then adjourned in respect of television assets to give the Crown the opportunity to submit a scheme designed to protect Te Reo Maori Television Trust if the assets were transferred. 
 In July 1991 Cabinet gave undertakings to the High Court to do among other things the development of special purpose Maori television. The High Court accepted the Crown’s undertakings and allowed the transfer of television assets. I say now that if a future Government were to dishonour that commitment it would be in serious trouble with the spirit of the rule of law. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: With regard to the Orewa speech indicators and the so-called reforms implied in that speech why does the Government not just go along with Dr Brash abolish the Ministry of Maori Development and establish as indicated by the  
New Zealand Herald  
on 3 November 2003 a portfolio for Asian relationships which is what Dr Brash refers to? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The member is quite right to point out certain inconsistencies because the National Party no longer has a women’s affairs spokesperson and it does not want a Ministry of Maori Development but it does want a spokesperson on Asian relationships. We are left wondering why different people are treated differently. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Prime Minister explain to the House how this country would be in constitutional crisis if Parliament introduced laws that effectively said the Crown had changed its mind? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I think it would be seen as the Crown in retrospect dishonouring a commitment it solemnly gave the court of the land. Members opposite say they believe in the rule of law. That would dishonour the rule of law. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Does the Prime Minister accept that New Zealand has an obligation to remove all race distinctions from our law under the international Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination which this country signed up to in 1968; if so when will she begin? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: In respect of discrimination under the law Governments from the early 1990s have been poring through all statutes to get rid of any discrimination that is prohibited under the Human Rights Act. But as the member well knows it is a long-accepted principle that equal opportunity initiatives may be used to ensure that there actually is equality. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that given the reaction to Dr Brash’s speech and also the events at Waitangi a week or so later there is a deep sense of unease amongst many New Zealanders about these issues; and if she does acknowledge that what steps does the Government consider necessary to deal with that unease? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I would hope that Government leaders along with other leaders in the House would recognise that New Zealanders do not want their country divided. They want to see people given a fair go they want equality of opportunity and they want fairness. We stand by those principles. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: If the Prime Minister is firm in her view that Parliament is sovereign and has pre-eminence over the courts will she then agree that Dr Brash can do as he promises and as 80 percent of the citizens of this country want him to do? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Parliament is sovereign but I and every New Zealander have an interest in seeing that this country’s rule of law is not reduced to a standing joke. That is what it would be if Dr Brash ever had his way and undid the solemn commitments given to a High Court by Jim Bolger’s Government. 
Stephen Franks 
: Given the Prime Minister’s acceptance that Parliament is sovereign why could not any Government simply delete section 9 of Labour’s State-Owned Enterprises Act which contained the references to the fake principles that forced the court to pursue the line it did and extract the undertaking; and why could a Government not instead simply say it would end racially separate broadcasting because it is not in the public interest—the same reason the Prime Minister gave last year for ignoring the Waitangi Tribunal’s finding that oil and gas had been taken from Maori in breach of the treaty? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I will endeavour to answer a couple of aspects of that question—the underlying assumptions of which I utterly disagree with. I am appalled that in this House a member would refer to fake principles of a treaty that his party’s founding leader said was fundamental to New Zealand. I put it to that member that when Dr Brash conceded on Linda Clark’s programme yesterday that the kakapo is unique and should be protected the same applies to the Maori language. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Which party first introduced racially separate broadcasting in this country? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The court matters I referred to arose in 1991 under the National Government led by the Rt Hon Jim Bolger. His Government gave those commitments to the High Court. It was only on the basis of that commitment by the Crown—bound to uphold the rule of law—that the High Court transferred the assets to Television New Zealand. That commitment I repeat was to see that Maori television would be established. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Noting the Prime Minister’s strong defence of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi can she now stand in the House and tell us what they are? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am prepared to give the member a digression on that at some length in a future question time but I want to say today that I believe—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is too much noise. That is quite enough. Please continue. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The most fundamental of those principles is one of partnership and mutual respect and that is what this Government will uphold. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a matter of very great public importance as anybody who follows the polls will know as anybody who listens to talkback radio will know as and anybody who reads the newspapers will know. So somewhat unusually in a point of order I want to indicate that should the Prime Minister seek leave for the extended dissertation on the principles of the treaty for the House right now we would not oppose it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: In the interests of getting the facts correct as to who is responsible I ask: is the Prime Minister aware that the first decision from the Waitangi Tribunal on the question of broadcasting—referred in 1991 to the then Minister of Maori Affairs—was consigned to the rubbish bin and never referred to Cabinet? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am not in a position to say what the position was of the Minister of Maori Affairs at the time but I know that a National Government gave the court its word and its successors now want to break that word—and that is reprehensible.