Peters Winston: Supreme Court Bill — Third Reading 
Peters Winston: Supreme Court Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9108] 
Madam Speaker I acknowledged you in my opening. As a Maori member I am privileged to speak on behalf of my colleagues in the Maori caucus as well as for my full caucus. I acknowledged the people far and wide in this country. Notwithstanding the interjection from the list member of no fixed abode Georgina te Heuheu I noted her and acknowledged her interjection. Furthermore I indicated quite clearly that it is the wish of our Maori members elected with the constituency vote and the party vote that our people stand up and wake up. It is our prayer that we cut the tie to Great Britain that they have become dependent upon. It is our view and our right on behalf of our people to acknowledge—and it was handed down from our ancestors—that we must be independent of not dependent on Great Britain. I also acknowledged our ancestors who fell on our behalf as shown by the memorials carved into the Chamber and those who have fallen recently. 
A wrong perception is definitely held particularly by a few people on the Opposition benches that the Privy Council serves as some sort of guardian of Maori treaty rights and that moving to a New Zealand - based Privy Council—our own Supreme Court—is inconsistent with the treaty. We do not believe that. That perception is inaccurate and unacceptable. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: We didn’t say that. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: The member for Tauranga goes around the country saying one thing in front of the Maori constituency but another in front of the old people in Tauranga. He is an absolute flip-flop. 
Settlements progress and as Maori organisations grow and change the prospect of litigation also grows. This Government is about positioning New Zealand for opportunity and for the future. That is the direction this Government is going in. The future will see Maori versus Maori cases not just Maori versus the Crown. Those days are over. Our people have to wake up and realise that we can no longer be dependent on traditions 12000 miles away. We have to understand our own mana for a change rather than being suffocated by a Privy Council in Great Britain or by Mr Peters’ social welfare department. It is likely that the final court of appeal will have to make determinations on matters of Maori tikanga—that is on matters of fact. 
As someone who has been to the Privy Council it became obvious to me that the council lacked the ability to make decisions on our cases. Its members did not have the knowledge of what makes a Kiwi or of our jurisprudence which has been treaty-driven through the Waitangi Tribunal. They did not have the knowledge of our society in our times for our things. Not only do I say that Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead said it in the Privy Council. He said: “For some years their lordships’ board has recognised the limitations on its role as an appellate tribunal in cases where the decision depends upon considerations of local public policy.” 
The courts of New Zealand are much better placed to assess the requirements of public interest in New Zealand than their lordships’ board. I concur with that lord. He was honest enough and the Privy Council was honest enough to know that they could not handle Kiwi-related matters. They could not apply the facts to the law because they no longer understood the facts. In 1973 when Great Britain deemed it time to go to the European courts it was quite clear that it had embarked upon a new form of law. That law was not our law; it was that country’s law—under the European courts. Twenty-five years later Opposition members sit there and say that is not true. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No no. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: The member for Tauranga continues to say that it is not true. We know different. 
Was it not a joke? We saw the Maori Affairs Committee desecrated yesterday by a love-in by the nancy boys running their own hui—the unholy alliance in our own select committee. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. There was a meeting yesterday. There were no Labour members there and yet he is referring to “nancy boys”. He should not be allowed to talk about his colleagues in that way. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: I am glad the member has come out of the closet. I am grateful for that. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I recall an incident last week in the Committee of the whole House that you were chairing in respect of which we recalled the Speaker. There was a Speaker’s ruling that there were to be no inferences. The issue arose when the Maori members on the other side of the House were called “the seven gnomes” and that was ruled out of order. Indeed the Speaker ruled that no inferences—such as “nancy boys” or anything else—were to be made. Because we had a discussion around it I ask you to make sure that that rule is constant right across Parliament. That member should not make any inferences about or references to anybody that are derogatory. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The Minister should not use language in that way. As the member has said it encourages disorder. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I am not making a point of order about the fact that what the Minister said is liable to raise disorder in this House. I know he is not talking about members on this side; he is talking about his colleagues and we all know who they are. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member raised a point of order and I have ruled on it. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Whilst we are taking the point I would like you to draw to members’ attention the fact that in his rather derogatory comments about members of Parliament who are still in the closet the Minister knows full well that many of his own party for their own reasons have yet to come out on that issue. To pull them into this debate which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the bill before the House is totally inappropriate. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member will be seated. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: When I was talking to my 13-year-old boy last night he said he saw Huey Dewey and Louie on television. I asked him who they were but I accept that I cannot name them in the Chamber— 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is the same point. The Speaker was very clear—no inferences or derogatory comments are to be made about any members in this House. It was a Speaker’s ruling and we had a debate about it. That member should be asked to desist or else have his speech terminated. It is not a very good one anyway. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Yes the member is quite right. If the Minister is referring to other members of Parliament he will refer to them correctly. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: The arrangement we have proposed in the bill is clearly this: we are elected for our judgment; we will not be bullied we will not be intimidated and we will not be stood over. [ 
Interruption 
] Not by the pinstriped one from Tauranga! That will not happen. Not only that we will also say that this court is about access for Kiwis to the highest court in their land. It is very simple. The money it takes to go off to Great Britain and trudge all the way through the process means that the Privy Council is no doubt supported by business which uses it as a negotiation instrument and a tool. The people I represent do not; the rich Maoris whom Ms te Heuheu represents do. That is the difference. ACT might want to do that because it is the party in Parliament to support the big side of town; we over here on this side of the Chamber are looking after all the little fellas. That is the way it goes. 
Much is made by members opposite of the fact that we are a small country and that supposedly means that we are incapable of supplying a sufficient number of high-quality judges to determine what the law of New Zealand is. It means that we are no good at anything and that we should sell ourselves—as the ACT party would have us do—to be the 51st state of the USA. That would mean a Bill of Rights and going to the Supreme Court of the United States of America. That party would have the Supreme Court of America tomorrow but it will not acknowledge the mana of its own people in our times. Worse the National Party would want to make us the seventh state of Australia. They would rather have an Australian Supreme Court rule on us. That is an outrage and the sooner Kiwis wake up to the fact that this is our time to shape our destiny—our time to grow up and say: “Now is the day.”—the better. 
I want to acknowledge something about the Attorney-General. They can intimidate stand over and say all of their ugly nasty little things about her but at the end of the day in terms of public service to Kiwi nationhood—whether as President of the Labour Party or as a senior academic at Auckland and Waikato universities—she beats them hands down and spades down. I am grateful that she is a colleague. Even better I am grateful that she is a mate. On this side of the House we stand by our mates. We do not sharpen the knife as Ronny Marks does—just behind Winston Peters—because Ronny’s after that. National members would not sharpen the knife because they do not know where to put it. Clearly they do not have a back to put it in. 
In any case I want to make it quite clear that in terms of this bill New Zealand has reached the stage in its nationhood-building where it must reject the cultural cringe and accept that we have the strength confidence and expertise to base our ultimate court in our own country and in our own times. Luckily we have a Government that has direction. Luckily it has leadership. Members on the other side are barren and bankrupt of leadership. 
I say to the member for Tauranga that I do not know the names of his Maori members. No one in the House knows the names of those Maori members. They are no-hopers nincompoops and all the rest of it but I understand they are not bad blokes outside the House. Never have they attended any Maori hui. Never have other Maori members seen them in any Maori hui. They do not turn up; they are as bankrupt as anything. 
I will conclude by saying that the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister have got it right. If we cannot run ourselves who can? We say we can we say it is our time and we say that this bill is the best thing that has happened in our court processes and constitution since we arrived.