Paraone Pita: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Paraone Pita: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9007] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chairperson. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Who? 
PITA PARAONE 
: I presume that you asked “Who?” because you cannot pronounce my name. Never mind. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member may not use the word “you” because that is referring to the Chair. He must use “the member” “the Minister” or speak in the third person. 
PITA PARAONE 
: I stand corrected. New Zealand First will continue to oppose this bill. I want to take a call on clause 3 “Purpose” in Part 1. Clause 3(1)(a) provides that the purpose is “to establish within New Zealand a new court of final appeal comprising New Zealand judges—” and then it outlines the reasons in subparagraphs (i) and (ii). With regard to the wording particularly in clause 3(1)(a)(ii) which states: “to enable important legal matters including legal matters relating to the Treaty of Waitangi to be resolved with an understanding of New Zealand conditions history and traditions;” I suggest that at this precise moment in time New Zealanders do not have a clear understanding of the Treaty of Waitangi. Those past cases that have already been referred to the Privy Council in relation to issues affecting the treaty have been better understood and as a consequence better dealt with by those from overseas. I am talking about those cases referred to the Privy Council in terms of the fisheries and broadcasting. 
I suggest that perhaps the reason for the haste with which this bill has been introduced and processed through this Parliament is anticipation of the likely cases that could be referred to the Privy Council to deal with the foreshore and seabed. Perhaps there is a fear on the part of the Government that the people who sit on the Privy Council will have a better understanding of this issue and may come down with findings that oppose the views of this Government. 
I also want to ask the Maori members in Government what in their view they have done to represent their people in this area. 
Pansy Wong 
: Nothing. 
PITA PARAONE 
: The fact that we are now debating this bill in the Committee stage can say only one thing and that as my learned colleague from this side has said is nothing. This is a betrayal of the highest order not only by those Maori members but also by this Government because the majority of New Zealanders including Maori oppose this bill. In fact we must question where the concept of democracy got lost on the way with regard to this Government. 
Given the narrow margin by which this bill was scraped through should not a halt be called until such time as adequate debate and consultation have been undertaken? The lack of support surely indicates that this issue needs further policy analysis—or is this Government afraid of what the New Zealand First ACT and National petition currently doing the rounds is likely to produce for the Government? This Government passed the Prostitution Reform Act by one vote. A similar situation is about to happen here. 
David Benson-Pope 
: Stop telling porkies. 
PITA PARAONE 
: Well whatever the difference was it was very close even if we did have one member from the Government side of the House give new meaning to objection by abstaining. What does that tell us about this Government? It tells us that it has its own agenda which will persist in the face of widespread public opposition and the glaring lack of a mandate from all New Zealanders. Constitutional changes should be made only with the consent of the people; but then to this Government what is the consent of the people? 
Seventy-five percent of those who appeared before the Justice and Electoral Committee opposed the bill. The independence of the judiciary and its political neutrality should be inviolable in this country. The longstanding links with the Privy Council and the legal expertise that it possesses should not be severed on a political whim.