Turei Metiria: Maori Purposes Bill — Second Reading 
Turei Metiria: Maori Purposes Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:636;Page:6892] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I want to tell a story about how the Treaty settlement deadline in this bill came to such prominence. The story starts with a speech at Orewa. In early 2004 Don Brash the then leader of the National Party made a speech that came to be known as Orewa I. In it he advocated the old integrationist policies of the past and specifically attacked Maori as having special privileges over other New Zealanders. This speech was purposefully written to push the buttons of the prejudiced and incite fear in the general population about Maori. It was an explicit attempt to incite race hate in our country. Thinking people said at the time that National was playing the race card in order to attract the votes of the prejudiced and the gullible. The full extent of this manipulative racism has only come to light through the leaked emails discussed— 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Although on the whole I often agree with the member’s speeches to the House it is not appropriate under the Standing Order to refer to a member of this House as racist or anything that a member has said as being racist. I ask you to bring the member to order. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: Speaking to the point of order Madam Assistant Speaker I point out that the rule is that no member of this House may describe another member or what a member has said specifically as racist. It does not prevent a member from describing policies ideas or issues as racist where that is appropriate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is quite correct and I refer the House to the Speaker’s ruling made by the Hon Doug Kidd which makes that very clear. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: It was an explicit attempt to incite race hate in our country. National was playing the race card in order to attract the votes of the prejudiced and the gullible. The full extent of this manipulative racism has only just come to light through the leaked emails discussed in Hager’s book  
The Hollow Men 
. Clearly this was not a speech based on policy. National’s policy was not framed in that way and its spokesperson Georgina Te Heuheu never advocated such ideas. The speech was not even written by Dr Brash. It was written by a small extremist cabal within Brash’s office who wanted to reverse the poll slump that their man was leading. It was a position based on lies. The examples that National used were extremes: facts were misrepresented and history reinterpreted to give the impression of Maori as a privileged group in society—a bizarre position to take given the facts. But the facts did not matter. The speech included paternalistic comments about Maori in order to pass a “political hygiene” test. So along with descriptions of Maori as having mischievous minds having power of veto over development and using stand-over tactics— 
Anne Tolley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I ask about the relevance of the speaker’s line of debate in relation to the bill before us tonight. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: A Maori Purposes Bill is a broad bill. The member is speaking to the bill. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: It was a bizarre position to take given the facts. But the facts did not matter. The speech— 
Anne Tolley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am just looking at the bill before us tonight and I cannot see anything about Orewa speeches; I cannot see anything about emails; I cannot see anything that would in the least bit relate to the member’s speech. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member has been addressing the issue of Treaty settlements in its context. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: The speech included paternalistic comments about Maori in order to pass the “political hygiene” test so along with those descriptions about Maoris having mischievous minds there were also very patronising comments about Maoris having a “special” place in New Zealand. When challenged by the media to identify the specifics of that policy all of those involved in the preparation of the speech refused to answer because the examples simply did not exist. Even Dr Brash’s own media team said there were no major race-based funding examples to be found. 
At the time that speech was delivered there were some rumours of concern from National Party politicians; most notably from the spokesperson on Maori Affairs who soon lost her role as a result. But the vast majority of the National Party members and caucus sat by and watched knowing that they would directly benefit from the hate heat and division that that speech would cause in the community. And benefit they did! Poll ratings soared for National. The race-hate rhetoric continued from that speech to the election campaign where the “iwi versus Kiwi” billboards specifically set out to isolate Maori from the rest of the community. It was divide and rule—the oldest tactic in the book. No facts no evidence no principles—the National Party election campaign. 
Meanwhile the sitting MPs were returned to their seats and many more National Party people became MPs. Their silence on such an unprincipled stance was deafening. But of course the negative impacts of the speech were not felt by the largely Pakeha membership of the National caucus. They were not the ones being accused of widespread abuses and of destroying the country. They were not being accused of corruption or nepotism. It was Maori who were being abused on the streets as a direct result of that speech. I have had reports of young Maori virtually children being taunted and abused by adults after Orewa. It was National that gave the ignorant and the bigoted the permission to behave in an openly racist manner. 
Who did Maori look to to combat the lies and divisiveness being perpetrated? They looked to the Government which was in the middle of the largest confiscation of Maori land in the history of our country and which was still the only viable power that had the resources and the facts to comprehensively combat those lies. But what did they get from a Labour - Progressive - United Future Government? Some Labour MPs were concerned and there was some rhetoric about that. But the Labour Government turned on Maori like National had and like many in the community were doing the Government lost its nerve and attacked not National which was distorting the facts and manipulating fear but Maori. Instead of defending the record of Maori development and the programmes to assist Maori to break through poverty cycles Labour turned on Maori too. 
Let us look at two of those examples. The first was Labour’s absolute acceptance that Maori were getting special privileges. Labour set Trevor Mallard to the task of finding targeted programmes for Maori and Pacific Islanders to have their funding cut in order to show that Labour was just as tough on the natives as National was purporting to be. National with no plan no policy or intention of doing anything had blown a dog whistle claiming special privileges for Maori and like the obedient puppy Labour came running with a mouthful of bone. In a broad detailed State Services programme Labour went through and cut funding to Maori and Pacific Island programmes. Who lost out? Manaaki tauira scholarships special supplementary grants for the retention of Maori and Pacific students in tertiary education the promotion of early childhood participation for Maori and Pacific children into early childhood education and domestic violence programmes to protect Maori women and their children from violent abusers lost out. 
But that was not the only thing that Labour did in response to National’s attacks at Orewa on the Treaty of Waitangi and the Waitangi Tribunal. Labour obediently decided that Maori should have imposed on them the deadline for the submission of historic Treaty claims to the tribunal set out in this bill. Brash’s nasty insinuation that Maori were using the Treaty— 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The member needs to refer to another member of this House by either his or her full name or correct title. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Yes the member does need to refer to the member by his correct name. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: Mr Brash’s nasty insinuation— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Dr Brash. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: Dr Brash’s nasty insinuation—I repeat that—his nasty insinuation that Maori were using the Treaty and the tribunal process to gain greater civil political or democratic rights than others was factually wrong. National knows that the tribunal process rightly and justly investigates crimes such as theft murder wrongful imprisonment and rape. But the truth was not the point for either National or Labour. Rather than make this just a simple policy on which Labour could consider the issues Labour turned it into one of its three major election promises from which it now cannot back down. Labour barking to National’s whistle has explicitly agreed with National’s distortions and manipulations about Maori. This bill will force Maori with few resources to meet a deadline imposed to benefit the Government and to appease the ignorant who now could not actually care less. We have in this bill the final stages of the implementation of National’s race-hate rhetoric and Labour Government law.