Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:608;Page:5463] 
5.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in the Attorney-General; if so why? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: Yes because she is a hard-working and conscientious Minister. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not going to warn members today about interjecting during question time. Questions are for questioners. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Putting aside the fact that so was the Iraqi Information Minister or he was a prize fool anyway why does the Prime Minister continue to say she has confidence in this Minister when the Minister has claimed she is consulting Maori over the Supreme Court and secondly has claimed that treaty cases are consistently sent back from the Privy Council—both claims being demonstrably and palpably false; and is it not about time the public knew the truth that only one treaty claim has ever been referred back from the Privy Council and it was to hear evidence to establish facts which the Privy Council stated should have been carried out by the Court of Appeal in the first instance; if so how can the Prime Minister have confidence in a Minister who makes those sorts of easy simple mistakes? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I can comment on the query made by the member as to the Minister’s consultation with Maoridom because it is a matter of public record. It is very straightforward and simple. There was public consultation in the year 2000 through the public discussion document  
Reshaping New Zealand’s Appeal Structure 
. There were meetings with a cross-section of Maori leaders in 2001. There were regional meetings in 2001 in Wellington Rotorua and Auckland. A ministerial advisory group was set up and if I had the time I could give the House the full Maori membership of that—there were people like Dr Ngatata Love Maui Solomon Archie Taiaroa and Shane Jones. There has been extensive consultation with Maoridom. It is on the record and the member should have known that. 
Tim Barnett 
: What is the argument in favour of having our own final court of appeal which is a move advocated by the Attorney-General? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a very wide question and there must be a very brief answer. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The first argument is increased access to justice for all New Zealanders including Maori. The second is that there will be a more speedy resolution of appeals. It will reduce costs while retaining an independent two-tiered appellate structure. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why does the Prime Minister have confidence in the Attorney-General when much of the opposition to the Supreme Court is precisely because many people do not trust that the Attorney-General is capable of setting up a politically neutral court and that she does not see it as a liberal activist court that will redesign our constitution? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Both of the member’s statements are incorrect. As I recall the first bill to remove the appeal right to the Privy Council was introduced by the National Party when I was in this House. The bill sat on the Order Paper doing nothing for 3 years but I notice that it was supported by Tony Ryall Nick Smith and Maurice Williamson whom I presume still support it unless they have done a U-turn. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does the Acting Prime Minister’s confidence extend across all Ministers including the Minister of Tourism whose answer in this House last week that “South Africa’s Governments offered virtual countries—” 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. This refers to the Attorney-General and must be related to that particular Minister. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am very reluctant to take a point of order because that is my ruling. 
Rodney Hide 
: I notice that you were very generous to Labour MP Tim Barnett when he went wide of the question and tucked in the Attorney-General at the end. Why does that not apply to members on this side of the House? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Because the member was asking a question about a bill that that Minister is responsible for. 
Murray Smith 
: Is the fact that many many Maori who made submissions to the Justice and Electoral Committee considered the failure of the Attorney-General to consult Maori to be serious—which has led to a situation where proceedings arising from that failure are about to be filed in the Waitangi Tribunal—of any concern to the Prime Minister at all? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: That question is based on an incorrect premise which is that there has been no consultation. I have already indicated to the House in this question session that there has been extensive consultation. I am also happy to advise the House that the Attorney-General and Ngati Tuwharetoa paramount chief Tumu te Heuheu will be establishing a consultation hui with Maori next month and that the paramount chief disassociates himself from the comments made on behalf of the Ngati Tuwharetoa position yesterday. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why is this House hearing that there has been extensive consultation when every Maori submitter from the central North Island who turned up at Rotorua on Monday claimed the complete opposite saying that they had not been heeded listened to or even consulted and—worse still—said they would join a hikoi to come down here and make their point known given that the seven Maori members in the Maori seats refuse to make their views known in this Parliament? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The successive consultation processes involving Maori have shown that there is a mixed view within Maoridom as there is within the remainder of the population. However I point out to the House that in a  
National Business Review 
 poll 2:1 people in New Zealand were in favour of abolishing the Privy Council. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given that the Labour Party has been supported since 1932 by the Maori people does the Minister think it is appropriate that the gateway to Maoridom in say Rotorua is not a marae that the Maori people requested to be heard on but rather the Grand Tiara Hotel? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The public opinion polls that I referred to before also show consistently how strongly the Maori people support the Labour Party including the Labour Party that in the last election made a very clear manifesto undertaking election promise to replace the Privy Council with a final court of appeal in New Zealand. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked a very simple question: does the Labour Party think it is fitting that rather than approach Maori on the marae which they requested they went to a hotel designated by the chairperson of that committee? That is my question. Would he answer that one? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Consultation meetings take place in all sorts of venues including marae.