Sharples Pita: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Sharples Pita: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:12807] 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Chair. Speaking on the rule of law what are we talking about here? This is a country where everyone goes around saying “One law for all.” So what was the story with the foreshore and seabed legislation? Where the hell did that come from? The National Party had a chance to stand up for justice by supporting the Maori Party on the repeal of that legislation. It missed a golden opportunity because it was frightened of losing its support out there—instead of being true to National’s own conviction which was to repeal the legislation. But I should get back to the rule of law—good thinking! 
I do not see that National supports the rule of law. Let me take the Treaty of Waitangi. When we came into this place we went to a few seminars on what law was and things like that and on what the constitution was. We were told the bits and pieces that make up New Zealand’s constitution and one of them is the Treaty. Both the National Party—whose members are now talking over the top of me—and the Labour Government have said that the Treaty of Waitangi is our nation’s foundation document. So why is it not in the rule of law? Why is it not ratified in some form as the umbrella if you like—the matua Act or the senior Act—if it is the foundation of our constitution? At the end of the day that is what we are talking about: our nationhood. If the Treaty is truly the foundation document of our nationhood why is it not ensconced in place and legislated for as the guardian document and let everything come out of it? It is so cheap to talk about the rule of law yet we have all these anomalies. People say they cannot have the Maoris owning the foreshore and seabed so they will keep it—but they will sell a bit for mining and stuff like that. 
Seriously it is more than just the rule of law; what about exercising the rule of law? I am waiting. People say we should wait and see. I will wait and see whether that policeman who took that woman’s panties out of the drawer in front of her and walked out with them was exercising the rule of law and whether that was correct procedure. It is one thing to have the rule of law but the other feature is exercising the rule of law and having restrictions to stop it from being abused. 
To go with the rule of law and exercising it is interpreting it. We have just done away with the fraud squad and we will look at organised crime. If one goes to the New Zealand Police website and looks up organised crime one sees reference to Maori gangs. They are the most disorganised people I know. They do not even agree amongst themselves. Although most of them are trying to do good now pockets of them are still offending under the Acts. So how can they be called organised for a start? And why does organised crime consist of those Maori gangs? I went to a seminar in which Australian and New Zealand police chiefs said that a certain gang—it is not a Maori gang; it is a well-known gang throughout the world—is now the new Mafia. If that gang is the new Mafia it is organised. If it is organised why is it not on the police website as organised crime? [ 
Interruption 
] That is my point. Wayne Mapp said that if the events of the last few weeks had not happened— 
Ron Mark 
: Dr. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: Dr Wayne Mapp. 
John Hayes 
: No it wasn’t him; it was me. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: It was Dr Mapp too. It was both members—two of them. They wondered whether we would be speaking like this if the events of the last few weeks had not happened. But that is the whole point. The events of the last few weeks highlight the danger of this particular Act: that it can be used and at the end of the day there is a clean-up procedure. A whole lot of stuff out there will not be able to be accounted for but the damage will have been done because the message has gone out and so on. 
Finally talking about the rule of law why are people in this Committee giving so much lip-service to the United Nations when they will not accept the word of the special rapporteur on race relations and they will not ratify the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples? Thank you Mr Chair.