Turei Metiria: Supreme Court Bill — In Committee 
Turei Metiria: Supreme Court Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9058] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I want to make a short contribution to this debate today and say first that I am very pleased that the Green Party is supporting this bill to the final stage. I do not believe that Maori gain anything from the retention of the Privy Council as the final appellate court of this country. I do believe that it is absolutely essential that there is a second-level stage of appeal and that that process is crucial to ensuring—[ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I take offence at the description of Maori as “dumb natives” as stated by Stephen Franks. I seek that you rule that he withdraw and apologise for that statement. 
Stephen Franks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I was characterising the member’s statement that Maori do not get any benefit from the Privy Council when in fact nearly all the Maori submitters gave evidence that they saw the Privy Council as being of great benefit. It is Metiria Turei who is characterising her own people in that way by suggesting they do not know what is good for them. If she cannot understand heavy irony she should not be in this Chamber. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Meteria Turei has taken offence and in those circumstances we ask only for a withdrawal. 
Stephen Franks 
: What do I withdraw? It was not an accusation made at her. I was addressing her view of people outside this Chamber. I have made no imputation on her other than that I believe she is characterising her own people whom she purports to speak for in that way. I have not addressed her in the terms of which she complains. I have alleged that that is the effect of what she is saying about the many sincere Maori submitters who came before the Justice and Electoral Committee. That is precisely the effect of what she is saying. She is saying that they do not know their own minds and do not know what is good for them because they told us they valued the Privy Council. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member. I guess almost anything one says in this Chamber could offend someone but in this case the speaker really took offence. In these circumstances just a simple withdrawal would be sufficient please. 
Stephen Franks 
: I withdraw. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: In my view I do not believe that Maori gain anything from the retention of the Privy Council as the final court of appeal. It is most essential that there is a second tier—a second level of appeal rights—as it is by that process that decisions made by the lower courts can be assessed against high principles of justice. In my view and in the view of the Green Party this bill is a small step in the process towards decolonisation. 
I have heard some argument from a number of Maori that the Privy Council provides Maori with a level of protection against the settler Government from which this Parliament is derived that the relationship with the Privy Council is a treaty-based relationship and that there is a very serious and deeply considered tie to the British Crown and to what it represents through the remaining links to the Privy Council. That is an extremely important point of view. It is a very valid point of view and not enough has been done to deal with those concerns. I absolutely understand that. But the Privy Council has not been a friend to Maori nor has it protected us from the harms caused by the thefts by successive Governments since the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi. I do completely respect the feeling in the Maori community that Maori do need a buffer—some form of independent watchdog over the actions of Parliament and the legislature. But the Privy Council is not that. It has not done that job and there is no indication to show that it will do that job in the future. 
Very few of the decisions by the Privy Council have favoured Maori. Very few decisions about Maori issues have gone to the Privy Council and very few of those have come out in our favour. I do recognise though that there have been some good decisions—for example the Maori broadcasting case. But many other Maori-focused cases do not get to go to the Privy Council. One area that has been raised is the Environment Court cases where Maori on the ground are struggling every day with their territorial local authorities to prevent issues like the discharge of sewage into waterways and are finding that they have no ability to continue those cases through the appeal system so that Maori values can be recognised as part of the process. The Supreme Court will provide some avenue for that to happen because there will be greater accessibility for Maori to that second level of appellate court. 
It has to be said that along with some good decisions—for example the Maori broadcasting case—there have been Privy Council decisions that have been very damaging to Maori. I refer to the 1941 case where the Privy Council stated that the Treaty of Waitangi was only enforceable if incorporated into municipal law. That decision has caused us enormous problems and difficulties. It eventually led to the ridiculous notion of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi that came through in the 1970s and the 1980s. That means it is very difficult to have the articles of and direct references to the treaty considered to be part of New Zealand law. Instead we have to look to the principles of the treaty which are Crown-derived and tend to utterly water down the fundamental decision-making tino rangatiratanga that the treaty guaranteed. That Privy Council decision has invaded and infected the whole of the treaty legislation and the treaty debate in our law since the 1940s. So we must be careful to remember that the Privy Council has done damage to the Maori community as well as providing some relief in some cases.