Tamihere John: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Tamihere John: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:623;Page:18298] 
JOHN TAMIHERE (Labour—Tamaki Makaurau) 
: 
 The Christian party’s spokesperson sits down—the lion has roared. Mr Marc Alexander used to be a mate— 
Marc Alexander 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have never been a member of any Christian organisation. I am an atheist and proud of it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is not a point of order. 
JOHN TAMIHERE 
: Before I get to the formal part of my speech in regard to supporting and commending the Prime Minister’s statement to the House I will make a number of observations in regard to the National Party and the state of it. 
We heard this evening that John Banks is thinking of standing for the ACT party in the Pakuranga seat. If “Banksie” is going to join the ACT party what does that say for his former colleagues in the National Party when he will not even contemplate going to their aid? They are dog tucker. However “Banksie” knows as we know that when he joins ACT it is like taking a ticket on the  
Titanic 
 knowing what was going to happen. He knows that joining the ACT party is like a rat going on to a boat that is going down rather than trying to escape it. But anyway he has escaped the National Party so that is probably a bonus. 
I also want to commend Katherine Rich in the House today. It is a great moment in politics and in this House when individual members stand by their principles and are not cowered bowed or intimidated by others in regard to gongs “incentivisation” programmes and the like that leaders may dispense. I am grateful to her for at least standing up for some constitutional integrity on that side of the House. 
The Prime Minister’s statement set out clear points of difference between us and members opposite and I want to spend a bit of time on exploring the differentiation and why Kiwis out in the heartland right now tonight will continue to vote for a Labour Government. They will continue to vote for us because we understand the evolution of our nationhood. Nationhood is a keynote approach to the Prime Minister’s statement. Understanding the Kiwi evolution and its track is very important. Equally important is the way in which race relations issues have meshed within our continuing nationhood story. Many of us can recall when Michael Joseph Savage declared war on Germany—“Where England goes we go. Where she stands we stand.” That is great and stirring stuff and is part of our nationhood story. 
Jill Pettis 
: But he didn’t say “without reservation”. 
JOHN TAMIHERE 
: We can tell Mr Power that he did not say “without reservation”! But at the same time as that was a great and moving call to arms in favour of the United Kingdom it also expressed our strong connection as merely a colony in the Antipodes. 
In 65 years we have come a long way and I want to put the proposition that it was not until the 1970s that we started to find ourselves and explore our place in Oceania the Pacific and indeed having Asia on our borders. It is very important that we understand how recent therefore not just the race debate is between Maori and the nation but also a range of other matters in terms of the restructuring of our economy and the like knowing that the umbilical cord to Great Britain was broken in 1974 when it voted to join as it was then known the EEC. Members on this side of the House if they understand our history can start to plan our future a lot better. 
I conclude this part of my speech by saying that the backbone of our nation and its leadership of tomorrow are the young Kiwis out there. They stand up and sing our national anthem in Maori and in English. They are far more tolerant and respectful of others and their rights despite how people might look dress eat and act. They have been lucky enough to be exposed to greater diversity. They energise and set the direction and standard for our music our fashion and our language and through text messaging they are going to destroy the English language faster than the Yanks. In the global marketplace they have a sense of their points of difference and how special they are. They are born out of and are very much patriotic to a great country. They will push the envelope so to speak but that is the role of the youth sector. It evidences a vibrant dynamic and Kiwi-centred approach to our going forward. It is Kiwi-centred because significant decisions have been made and implemented that we are driving right in right now as a baseline to a nationhood concept that gives them regardless of race and creed a sense of belonging as Kiwis in this great country. Our challenge is in moving forward. 
I will comment now on the constitution. Our constitutional process lends itself to continuing incremental change and it is anchored by the supremacy of Parliament. It is not anchored in unelected judges and it is not anchored in the supremacy of unelected editors in the fourth estate and the like. It stands right here in this House and I would argue that we have been bequeathed a supreme process known as a Kiwi version and shaping of a Westminster system. There has been widespread disquiet over the role of the Treaty of Waitangi. I commend Peter Dunne and United Future as Peter Dunne heads a parliamentary select committee that will help to shape a constitutional conversation without hate without envy and without division. That is the type of leadership a Labour Government can give by acknowledging the leader of another party in leading a very important debate. That is how important it is. I make the point this evening that to us the Treaty of Waitangi is in a constitutional sense what the Declaration of Independence was to the Americans and what the Magna Carta is to the UK. It is a foundation statement a foundation document that will never be unwoven regardless of any rhetoric Dr Brash may care to spread around. 
Moving on to the issue of race given that we deferred our nationhood debate and therefore the debate on the position of Maori in Kiwi society until the 1970s it is important that we acknowledge and accept that significant outcomes have been achieved with the goodwill of all parties. The rise of the Maori Party is unfortunate and frustrating. It is not Maori; Maori is a generic term. The group of people who have supported the rise of the Maori Party are actually tribal fundamentalists. At the end of the day once they wake up in bed—either before or after the election—we will start to see an implosion. The problem with the Maori Party is that it is led by a bunch of people who have done extraordinarily well out of protest activism so they can tell their children why they should vote against things why they should march against things and why they should dislike others. Under no circumstances will the Maori members of the Labour caucus accept that as we start to march forward hand in hand as we must and as we should. 
It is quite clear. The Maori Party is built around new-age educationalists reconstructionists in terms of history and the academics and the new elite around the Treaty of Waitangi chequebooks. There is no case and no space in this country for separatists. I am very proud of my Ngati Porou tanga—very proud of that tribal background. We do not ram it down other people’s throats but we are very proud of it. Our being proud of it does not mean to say that we can coerce others into our way of thinking. We have to acknowledge that this is a great land of diversity difference and opportunity. The days when people could stand up and scream “treaty” and believe that they would get special rights have gone. The Labour Party has led by its very rich tapestry and genealogy. Great rights have been won for Maori. Now Maori have to wake up as to how we are going to bank those rights and how we are going to use them rather than always grasping—as the Maori Party continues to do—for more and more. In the last 25 years Maori have made huge progress. It is about time we had a new leadership that stood up and started to celebrate and rejoice in the potential of our communities rather than continuing to protest. 
I want to conclude by noting how strong the economy is. The fact is that the whole calibration overseen by Dr Michael Cullen and the leadership combo of Clark and Cullen is not just giving greater headspace to other Governments—fearful of course of the thought that any other Government could replace us—but is also adding huge headspace in terms of the level of debt in terms of prudent and appropriate taxation policy and with regard to the “Cullen fund” which provides a huge stabiliser. On every step of a business case we have debt. Firstly we will reduce it. We have reduced it from 33 percent to 25 percent and it will go down to 20 percent by 2008. Secondly we must be certain of our income flows like any business. We must be certain that they are solid and stable before we start to spend them. We are not certain; therefore we will not hold a lolly scramble. Thirdly we must invest in our skills competency capability and capacity. We are putting huge dollars into that. Fourthly like any good business we can then start to give rewards through either dividends or tax cuts. But we have to answer the first three questions first. We must have a very fair conversation about that and we have to cut the masses in. This is not a debate about a failed Reserve Bank governor leading a failed National Party; this is a debate that goes to the heart and soul of every Kiwi household as they watch their TVs and go to the barbie at the beach every Sunday. I commend the Prime Minister’s statement.