Jones Dail: Supreme Court Bill — Second Reading 
Jones Dail: Supreme Court Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:8906] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I would like to thank all the staff who helped us in the select committee. I would like to thank the chairman as well even though he expressed no thanks to New Zealand First. I thank the chairman for making sure that any request we had with regard to material and suchlike was followed up; I cannot think of anything I asked for that was not made available. I would like to thank the staff for taking the trouble to find all that information and from time to time offering things that I had not thought of myself. 
This was a very interesting piece of legislation. New Zealand First’s view on the matter is set out in its manifesto and we adhere to our manifesto. We believe that there should be no repeal of the right of appeal to the Privy Council until a referendum has been conducted amongst the society of New Zealand and that prior to that referendum there should be a 2-year discussion and education on just what is involved in abolishing the right of appeal to the Privy Council. 
Instead of having a wide open public debate on this issue with people being well informed and a Parliament with a broad support for any decision that is made in this respect we have a very very sad situation at the moment. We have a situation where by a majority of about four this minority Labour Government the Progressives and the Greens will force a very substantial constitutional change on New Zealand. This is a substantial constitutional change. Such a change should be passed by this House only by a 75 percent majority. Instead it will be barely 50 percent. That is an utter disgrace if we believe we are a Western-style democracy if we believe in consensus and if we believe we are mature enough to move forward together. This is not moving forward together; this is the Labour Party the Progressives and the Greens with a majority of about four forcing their views on the Parliament of New Zealand and the public of New Zealand. 
 They are forcing their views on the Maori people of New Zealand. Every submission from a Maori group was opposed to this legislation and we had any number of submissions from Maori groups. The Treaty of Waitangi means more to Maori than it means to anybody else because some of us who went to university in the 1960s and studied history and constitutional law barely touched on the Treaty of Waitangi when we studied but it is part of tikanga Maori for the Maori people of New Zealand. It is part of their way of life and is ingrained in them. Again and again and again they said that they do not want appeals to the Privy Council being abolished until some clear constitutional arrangements are set in place. That was the crux of the Maori submissions to the select committee. 
Those Maori submitters who were present at the venue in Rotorua will recall the leader of New Zealand First the Rt Hon Winston Peters making it clear that submissions from Maori groups should be heard on marae not in hotel rooms here there and everywhere. I put the suggestion to the select committee that we should go to various marae around the country and a list was made available to the select committee. We have seen how this Government will go around the country to various marae in order to hear views. But did it take up the point about hearing the Maori people’s views on the abolition of the right of appeal to the Privy Council? The answer is “No”. The Government had made up its mind. It was not interested in the views of the Maori people despite the fact that the Maori people of New Zealand were totally opposed to this legislation. 
I turn to one of the points made by Nandor Tanczos when the bill was introduced. Nandor Tanczos the spokesperson for the Greens said on 17 December 2002: “The select committee should look at the possibility of holding hearings on marae for example. I understand that has happened with other bills before the Maori Affairs Committee. It would be useful to do the same here because this is an issue of constitutional importance.” What was Nandor Tanczos’ view when that came up before the select committee? 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: Lie down. 
DAIL JONES 
: There was no interest. He was not interested in going to marae. He was given the chance. That is the Greens. I cannot recall any support from the Greens and I leave it to Georgina te Heuheu to comment on that later on if required. Where was Nandor Tanczos in the select committee banging away for hearings of submissions on various marae around the country? He was nowhere. The Greens have done a deal with the Labour Party on other legislation and they could not give two hoots about constitutional matters as far as New Zealand is concerned. They could not give two hoots about the views of the Maori people of New Zealand. On 17 December 2002 Nandor Tanczos said: “We are guided by our policy which states that removing the Privy Council appeal rights or any move to a republic would need to be preceded by full dialogue between the tiriti partners to agree on how the tiriti relationship would be given effect to in any new arrangement.” 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Who said that? 
DAIL JONES 
: Nandor Tanczos said that on 17 December 2002 in this House. That is in  
Hansard 
 Volume 605 at page 2795. Did he do that when the bill came before the select committee? No way! The Greens have sold out any support that they were looking for from the Maori people and what do they get in its place? I think he is glad that the Clean Slate Bill might become a Government bill. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: That’s the deal is it? 
DAIL JONES 
: That is the deal. That is one of the little deals on the side. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: And have marijuana convictions quashed. 
DAIL JONES 
: All those people with little marijuana convictions will have them squashed as will people who might have been protesting at one stage or another in the early 1980s. That is the sort of deal we will be getting with the Greens. The Greens will protect all those marijuana-smoking types who have minor convictions; that is what they will get as a quid pro quo for supporting the abolition of the right of appeal to the Privy Council whereas the Maori people of New Zealand have asked the select committee time and time again to support the retention of the appeal to the Privy Council. 
Of those who made oral submissions to the select committee 74.5 percent favoured the retention of appeals to the Privy Council. That is just one of the many statistics in the select committee report. Most submissions from Maori oppose the abolition of appeals to the Privy Council. An early submitter who supported the abolition of appeals to the Privy Council and who spoke in his own right was Shane Jones. I give him credit. He came along and said that he had some experience of appearing before the Privy Council. I should draw to the attention of the House Sir Tipene O’Regan’s experience of appearing before the Privy Council as well. I had never met the gentleman and I was extremely impressed by his submission. I can now understand why Ngai Tahu have done so well. He gave us an example of his experience with the Privy Council. The case was being put by a QC who was perhaps from Wellington or Auckland and Sir Tipene O’Regan made the point that he was staggered by the poor pronunciation of Maori by the New Zealand QC and he was amazed and delighted by the wonderful pronunciation of Maori by the judicial officers of the Privy Council. 
The absolute claptrap and nonsense that we get in the House from some members—that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council does not care at all about Maori—should be tossed out of the window. That was a clear example. As a user of the Privy Council Sir Tipene O’Regan who supports the continuation of appeals to it really opened my eyes to the way in which the Privy Council was far and away ahead of some of the lawyers from New Zealand who appeared before it insofar as things Maori are concerned. He made the very good point that he is a user of the Privy Council. He has been there used it and seen how it works as opposed to some of the judges who gave submissions to the select committee and said that they wanted appeals to be abolished. They were the judges the people who make the decisions and they are in a different category altogether. But the users of the Privy Council—the Maori groups and the business groups in the main—want it to continue. 
As far as access to justice is concerned we will be spending another $21 million in capital costs to set up a new Supreme Court—if the Greens continue with their folly and it goes ahead—and $4.5 million per year on running the court. There is no support in this country for this bill. There was no consultation by the Labour Party before the bill was introduced. It should not proceed. This is a very sad day for all of us in New Zealand.