te Heuheu Georgina: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
te Heuheu Georgina: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9005] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National) 
: 
 I want to make some comments on the purpose clause which the Minister has just referred to. The bill as introduced had a very simple purpose clause that sensibly set out the very simple reason for the bill which is basically to establish a Supreme Court to end appeals to the Privy Council and to make amendments that follow on from that. We now have a new purpose clause which in my view is symptomatic of all the gobbledygook and wiffle-waffle that the Government is known for. 
I can see why the Government has done this. It has tried to address the many concerns and points of opposition that were made at the select committee but in essence I do not think it has done so. Clause 3(1) states that the purpose of the Act is to establish a court and “to recognise that New Zealand is an independent nation with its own history and traditions”. Honestly that is like telling people how to suck eggs. If that is not what a court should be about then we are in a sorry state of affairs if we have to spell it out in legislation. New Zealand is an independent nation. No matter if we carried on with the Privy Council for the rest of our days we are an independent nation in any event. It is not the location of our final court of appeal that makes us an independent sovereign nation. 
Hon Taito Phillip Field 
: And the umbilical cord has to be cut sometime. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: The member is probably right. But it should certainly not be against the wishes of the majority of the New Zealand public. No matter how much the Government might say it has a mandate to do this it runs a minority Government. The Greens who are supporting the Government are not even united. I know that. There are members in the Green Party who are not happy about having to do a deal so that Nandor Tanczos can get his Clean Slate Bill through and wipe any offences relating to the smoking of pot that he or his friends might have. 
That is the kind of deal-making that goes on here. A bill that the majority of New Zealanders have no time for will now be rammed through without a mandate thanks to three extra votes from the Greens whose word cannot really be taken seriously—particularly when we get someone like Nandor Tanczos who at the beginning of the session said: “I will wait to see what Maori say about this.” He did not hear them because 95 percent of the submissions Maori made are opposed to the bill but he is still supporting it anyway. 
Clause 3(1)(a)(ii) states that the purpose is: “to enable important legal matters including legal matters relating to the Treaty of Waitangi to be resolved”. That does not satisfy Maori objection—not at all. No doubt it was put in to satisfy Nandor Tanczos. We get a situation whereby a little party somehow exerts its weight far above what it should. If Nandor Tanczos thinks that clause 3(1)(a)(ii)— 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think it is important that members’ names be pronounced correctly. “Nandor” is pronounced with the vowel sound of the “a” in Maori. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member for drawing that to the member’s attention. Some people have difficulties with pronunciation—I am sure all of us do at certain times—but I would expect that members would do their best to pronounce names correctly. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: Speaking to the point of order Mr Chairperson I ask how I should pronounce the member’s name please as my name is mispronounced so much of the time. 
Keith Locke 
: It has a Maori “a” pronunciation. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not a point of order. Will the member please continue. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: I did not realise that Nandor was a Maori name or that I have to pronounce it with a Maori vowel. I look forward to the person who raised the point of order pronouncing my name correctly if he would. 
In any event if the Government thinks that clause 3(1)(a)(ii) satisfies Maori objections it is wrong. I ask Nandor Tanczos to think again and get it into his head that he does not represent a Maori point of view no matter how much he might think that he wants to or that he can. The bill in no way satisfies the objections of Maori. Their major objection is that this is being done without proper dialogue on the status of the treaty.