Peters Winston: Supreme Court Bill — Third Reading 
Peters Winston: Supreme Court Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9102] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 This idea was illegitimate at conception and it will be illegitimate at birth. There was no mandate for this matter at the 2002 election. It was in Labour’s manifesto and it was in the Progressive manifesto but both those parties could not get a majority. It was not in the Green manifesto. The Greens said they would pay attention to what the Maori people wanted. So firstly there is no mandate. Secondly 80 percent of the people of this country want to have a say on this issue and they should have it. On such a significant issue of constitutional change the people should be asked not the temporarily empowered politicians about to go from this Parliament as Margaret Wilson soon will. The moment the Prime Minister flies the white flag she will be gone as well. They want to leave that legacy to the rest of us to try to put in place in the long term as we carry on in Government. 
Helen Clark said she knows at least 10 other people who support this legislation. Is that so? Could that be true? Are there 10 other secret supporters of this bill? Well I tell the Prime Minister to put her money where her mouth is and have a conscience vote today. We will then see who is telling the truth—Helen Clark or the rest of us. 
Then she talked about the cost. Any international business that in the future has a dispute—and this will be written into the contract—will not have that dispute decided in New Zealand. It will be decided in the UK Canada Australia or Europe—anywhere but in New Zealand. Because there is no way that 4 million people can put together a group of judges far enough removed from the maelstrom of politics to be independent. Those are not my words they are in the 1969 thesis of one Geoffrey Palmer. It is all there. No way could one have that proximity to the people and guarantee independence. So we disposed of that argument as well. But the costs to New Zealand business will be huge. 
Then of course they say as Nandor Tanczos and John Tamihere did that the Privy Council is only for the rich. It is amazing to hear that stupid statement. Who took the Samoan people during 1982 who were not the rich to a win in the Privy Council? Who took a whole lot of Maori claimants just last year to the Privy Council—all seeking legal aid and three-quarters of whom were Maori—to benefit hundreds of people because our High Court and Court of Appeal got it wrong? They were ordinary poor people. I myself have been there against the rich and famous in the wine-box case. 
Pita Paraone 
: Labour supporters! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Oh Labour supporters; Labour donors! They gave Labour millions. This argument about the cost—that the benefit will be only to the wealthy—is therefore spurious totally false and a diversion. 
They say we are doing just what Canada and Australia did. That is not true. That is false. Helen Clark says she is widely read on this issue. She is not. Margaret Wilson made that claim too. This is a former dean of a law school. Mind you it was Waikato University! This former dean does not understand that in Canada—after it finally established its last and final Court of Appeal—the right to go to the Privy Council went on for another 74 years. In Australia the other example put up by Helen Clark and Margaret Wilson the right to go to the Privy Council went on for another 85 years. Not this bunch reciting those examples! Ignorant of the facts they say we will be in the same circumstances as Canada and Australia. That is totally false and historically wrong. There is a word for that but I cannot use it. 
And here is the other Helen Clark and Margaret Wilson deceit. They said that the last time Maori went to the Privy Council and won was in 1927. That is demonstrably false and totally untrue. A former assistant clerk of this House Ellis took 12 people to the Privy Council three-quarters of whom were Maori—but the beneficiaries in the main from that finding were Maori and there were hundreds of them—and they won. Those people were so poor they could not even afford to go there unless it was on legal aid at the time. So we have debunked that argument as well. 
But I want to come to those seven Maori MPs who every day say that they are the unique special and particular voice of the Maori people of this country who have been here for 1000 years and entitled to a special ward in political terms themselves. Those seven Maori members say that above all else they speak for Maori. 
My colleague Pita Paraone passed on an old saying to me this morning: “Even lambs make noises.” Even lambs say something. So can people hear the voice of Maoridom down the centuries the tangata whenua the people of the land? What can members hear? A deafening silence; not a mutter not a murmur not a syllable not a sound and not even a bleat! “Yes ma’am yes ma’am three bags full.” They talk of tino rangatiratanga the tribe the mana the majesty of the people and standing in the shoes of chiefs. Can members hear the voice now? No I cannot. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Taihoa taihoa. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Yes it is. “Taihoa taihoa it’s off to vote we go!” That is their idea of representation. If ever I saw a nail in the coffin of special Maori representation I am seeing it today. For there is no reason to carry on with the separate Maori seats if that is what the standard unique and special voice represents. 
I say to the Maori members over there that they have nothing to be afraid of. Those seven Maori members have nothing to lose by crossing the House to vote with their people today. They have nothing to lose. They will not even lose their seats because we will not stand against them. They have nothing at all to lose but their weakness. They have nothing at all to lose but their subservience. They have nothing at all to lose but the subjugation of their people. So they should stand up today for their people. They should do something. [ 
Interruption 
] 
They should not shout at me; they should shout at their leader. They should not shout me down; they should shout their leader down. Or better still those members should get up on their feet to defend this bill. If ever I saw a patronising attitude to Maori it is in the way Labour has treated them today. All during this debate they have not been able to speak. Not one Maori member has spoken for the full time since this debate started. 
The senior Government whip pretends that he speaks for Maori right over his colleagues’ heads. If that happened in my party we would be shouted down would we not? But those members are colonised. They are suffering from overbearing imperialism. They have nothing to lose. They should cross the floor. Their people are asking them to do that. 
Lastly this is a defining moment for this country. We intend to repeal the legislation. No respectable jurist if he or she is halfway wise will take on that office. But more importantly unlike what their spin doctor told them this will not be forgotten in 2 years’ time. It is the defining moment for the next election and when it is all over those members will be over here and we will be over there.