Sharples Pita: Third Readings 
Sharples Pita: Third Readings 
[Volume:636;Page:7029] 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 As a new MP I have used this first year to familiarise myself with the separation of powers between the judiciary the executive and the legislature. I have immersed myself in parliamentary business and taken every opportunity to develop my craft. In the process of updating my knowledge of protocols and conventions I came across a masterpiece. The author was Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville the book was  
Democracy in America 
 and the point was the moral power of the majority. Over a century ago in 1835 de Tocqueville released a classic publication that described democracy as tending to devolve towards a tyranny of the majority. In simple terms the book describes the situation in which a majority might use its strength in Government to ride roughshod over the rights of minorities. The idea of a tyranny of the majority implies that the number of legislators is more important than their quality. The next stage of the sequence is the tyranny of the legislature which suffers from exposure to the whims of the majority. 
Last night this Parliament saw the force of de Tocqueville’s teachings enacted through the means of the original Maori Purposes Bill. Clause by clause the Green Party and the Maori Party rose to recommend that specific problematic clauses of this bill be deleted or amended. Clause by clause the moral majority ruled the amendments out of order or voted them down one by one. 
The original Maori Purposes Bill contained a raft of provisions of fundamental importance for tangata whenua and indeed for the future of our nation as we consider the impact of this legislation upon our obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The central sticking point of this whole theatre was Part 2 of the original bill which inflicted changes to the Treaty of Waitangi Act and imposed an arbitrary definition of a historical claim and a final lodging date for historical claims. These interventions would impact widely but there was no consultation with the Maori partners to the Treaty. 
The arbitrary and politically contrived imposition of a final submission date for historical claims without prior discussion with and agreement from Maori parties to the Treaty is yet another if not the most severe example of a Government prepared to run roughshod over Maori for any price—indeed for the price of Government. That election promise of plucking a date out of the air and saying “That’s it!” will neither enhance nor diminish opportunities for Maori to complete settlements of Treaty claims but it will have a significant impact on the Crown’s obligations to Maori under the Treaty. It is a case of one partner—the Crown—imposing the rule of law of its parliamentary majority over the other the Maori which is a classic example of “might is right”. 
There is an obvious risk that to effect change in any part of the current responsibilities under the Treaty without being aware of the consequences to the whole would entail further erosion of the status of Maori and the protection of Maori interests. The Maori Party believes that any and every action of the Crown that affects our capacity to enact the Treaty must be discussed and shared with both partners to the Treaty. The courts have found that an aspect of the Treaty obligation to act in good faith is a duty to make informed decisions through consultation. 
The Waitangi Tribunal has also emphasised the value and utility of consultation in upholding and strengthening the Treaty partnership. So it would seem that we are all singing off the same song sheet. It is critical that informed debate and proper process should occur to accord due respect to the very constitutional framework within which Aotearoa sits. We believe that consultation should have taken place to ensure that tangata whenua were able to come to the table as equals empowered to discuss the implications without having to face a hasty and predetermined position dreamt up by officials. 
So exactly what does this Government believe constitutes consultation on this legislation coming from the Maori Purposes Bill? There were 20 submissions; that was its scale. So we wrote to the Minister of Maori Affairs and we met with the Minister of Maori Affairs—the “Minister of No Change”. When we turned to those 20 submissions we read that the overwhelming—18 out of 20 submissions—and consistent message from the public was to demand consultation with tangata whenua about the proposed changes. During the select committee hearings I therefore sought leave for Part 2 of the original bill to be put to the side until consultation had occurred. Leave was denied. Well we are a resolute bunch so undeterred by another rejection we came to this House armed with amendments to omit Part 2 to omit clauses 16 and 18 and even to put up a compromise position to omit the final closing date of “1 September 2008” and to substitute “after 1 September 2020”. 
My colleague Te Ururoa Flavell speaking in te reo Maori urged Parliament to consider in the interests of due justice and the pursuit of nationhood that talking with the Treaty partner was a very good starting point for progress. The member for Te Tai Tokerau stood and asked all Maori present in the Chamber to raise their hands if they thought their tipuna believed there would be a date imposed for lodging claims to Treaty settlements. No hands were raised. That vote was ruled out of order. Another vote was put but voted down. There were 107 votes opposed and 10 in support. Over and over again the tyranny of the majority overpowered Treaty justice. 
It was not just on the sections pertaining to the Treaty of Waitangi Act that the axe fell. We turned our attention towards the procedures and discretion of the Maori Land Court as provided for in the revisions of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. I want to correct the myth that the Maori Land Court is somehow a vehicle for privileging Maori in their own court. Indeed according to Sir Hugh Kawharu it is far from being our own court. He said it is “a veritable engine of destruction for any tribe’s tenure of land anywhere”. Like this very Parliament the Maori Land Court will always be haunted by the shame of its role in facilitating the Crown purchase and confiscation of Maori land back in the 1860s. Despite that history however the Maori Land Court today now has exceptional talent and expertise serving on its bench. We proposed an amendment therefore that would have enabled judges appointed to the Maori Land Court to preside also in the District Court if agreed to by the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court. Again the amendment was overturned—ruled out of court so to speak. 
The Government’s extraordinarily weak consultation on this legislation was deplorable. What is wrong with talking with the people? Why will the Government not consult fairly? This is colonial behaviour over and over again. Everything is totally manipulated to suit the majority in this House without regard to an authentic view from Maori. The fact is that the Treaty settlement process is a complete farce and this legislation will make it even more so. Plonking a rigid deadline into this context assumes that people are resourced and able to identify themselves with a Wai claim by 2008 with little or no evidence to justify that. Every solution and every compromise that we and the Green Party have submitted to this House has been squashed under the tyranny of the majority. But the tyranny of legislation will not proceed unhampered. 
We mourn this day as yet another when justice has been denied and come the next election we will inform the Maori people of how the Maori members of the Government voted. We will not have to indulge in spin as they will no doubt have to. All we will have to do is give the people a copy of  
Hansard 
 and they will be able to see it for themselves. Thank you.