Ririnui Mita: Supreme Court Bill — Second Reading 
Ririnui Mita: Supreme Court Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:8918] 
MITA RIRINUI (NZ Labour—Waiariki) 
: 
 I stand to take a brief call in this second reading debate on the Supreme Court Bill but before doing so I join some of my colleagues including Nandor Tanczos in congratulating the clerks officials and advisers to the Justice and Electoral Committee on their accurate and timely advice in assisting the committees to bring this bill back to the House. 
Is it not amazing that people say one thing in Opposition and say something else when they are in Government? I was listening very carefully to the previous speakers and the statements that they made in opposition to the abolition of the Privy Council. I too will make some statements about the strength of the Maori submissions during the submission process. I heard the question earlier on from the National Party member Richard Worth: “Why do away with it?”. Well I want to quote what a couple of his own party members said in 1994 and 1995. In 1994 the Hon Nick Smith said: “I am one of those who believe that the Privy Council has out-served its time.” Now that is exactly how we feel on this side of the House and surprisingly enough even though a lot of submissions from Maori were concerned about the abolition of the Privy Council many did say that it is running out of time and that its shelf life is almost up. In 1994 and in 1995 the Hon Maurice Williamson—admittedly at No. 28 on the National Party list—said: “I think the Privy Council is outdated.” In 1995 he also said: “We should not have to trot off to London for certain permissions on all sorts of constitutional matters. We should do it here.” Now it does not come any more accurate than that! I want to congratulate those members on making those statements. They probably would have had their legislation up before this House had they not been told to withdraw it by “you know who.” 
I want to speak briefly on the submissions from Maori groups and I congratulate Nandor Tanczos because he actually did listen to what they were saying. On the one hand they were saying that they have a concern— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Rubbish! 
MITA RIRINUI 
: The member will have his opportunity to speak. Maori did say to the select committee that they oppose the abolition of the Privy Council for one reason and one reason alone—because as yet we do not have a written constitution in place. That was the main concern of those groups and of course it is a concern to many of us. But we were able to satisfy those submitters by explaining that we are proposing a constitutional inquiry through the same select committee process and that by and large satisfied many of those people. The Hon Richard Prebble has described Margaret Wilson as the most dangerous politician in this country. Well let me tell that member something. Margaret Wilson has put the Treaty of Waitangi at a level that we can all debate. She has also made sure that it is included in much of our legislation. Members can be sure as well that when we come to a constitutional debate the treaty will be prominent. It is interesting that New Zealand First member Dail Jones’ idea of a treaty policy is having a hui on a marae. Well I tell Mr Jones that the treaty is bigger than that. It is about all of us having a debate. It is not just the Maori treaty— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What did Judge Hingston say at Rotorua? 
MITA RIRINUI 
: Well he actually said that he was speaking on behalf of the paramount chief of Ngati Tuwharetoa. What happened the next day? There was a disclaimer in the  
New Zealand Herald.  
What does Mr Peters think of that? I got it right. That member went to Rotorua not to assist those submitters in the process but to advocate for votes. That is all. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.