Delahunty Catherine: General Debate 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Delahunty Catherine: General Debate 
[Sitting date: 21 March 2012. Volume:678;Page:1159. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
Tena koe. I too apologise in advance for not being aware of that Standing Order. I also wish to speak about the Terrorism Suppression Act but I will be guided by you Mr Speaker if I step out of line. I intend to talk about the bigger picture and the issue of the 15 October events. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As long as the honourable member does not talk about the matters particularly before the court I invite her to proceed. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Before the member gets going I think it would be useful for you to indicate the matters that are still before the court. There are clearly a large number of cases that were dropped and charges that were dropped. The question of guilt or innocence is no longer before the court; it is only the matter of sentence that is awaiting adjudication now. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In respect of the wider picture no charges remained under the Terrorism Suppression Act or actually were finally brought under the Terrorism Suppression Act. So as long as the member stays in that general territory I do not see that the member is going to be in breach of the Standing Orders at all. In respect of the matters on which the people were convicted that is a matter that preferably there should be no comment on. They relate particularly as I understand it to charges in relation to the illegal use of arms. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is worth bearing in mind that in respect of the matters that were before the court as I understand it the jury could not reach a verdict on certain charges that were before the courts. Therefore there is still a question about whether or not the Crown prosecutor will retry the case and therefore they could well fall within the Standing Orders that we are talking about. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear the Hon Trevor Mallard very briefly. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: The member is quite plainly wrong. The trigger that sets it off will be the re-laying of the charges. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept the Hon Trevor Mallard’s view of that. What I would just draw to members’ attention though is the new Standing Order that requires members to advise the Speaker in writing if they intend to comment on matters that could be seen to be matters before the court; this is clearly something that is in that territory. But I think the member understands what areas to avoid now. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. On 15 October 4½ years ago an event appeared on our television screens that looked more like an American macho cop show than anything we had seen in this country for many years but it was real. It reminds me of the AhmedZaoui case—a situation where over-assumption and then scrambling to save face resulted in considerable breaches of human rights for communities across Aotearoa New Zealand. The Crown had also determined to test the Terrorism Suppression Act and therefore it was testing it against a group of citizens across the country some of whom did not even know each other and yet were dragged into a debacle that has gone on for the last 4½ years. 
Firstly however before I talk about the Terrorism Suppression Act I want to mihi to the whanau of Tuhoe Lambert from Waikaremoana. Tuhoe Lambert is unable to receive justice because he passed away in July last year. So his whanau will never receive any of the justice that he sought through the process after he was charged. I guess the Green Party today wants to pay respect to that whanau for the price that they have paid for what has become one of the most bizarre cases in the history of New Zealand law. 
The most abusive and bizarre behaviour occurred during a paramilitary lockdown on 15 October at a small community called Ruatoki in the Bay of Plenty where whanau were dragged literally out of their beds or confined in their homes where their roads were blocked and where their children bore the brunt of what the children of Ruatokinow call the ninja attack. Three hundred armed faceless military-style police entered that community at dawn and the scars are still being carried by the children of Tuhoe. Those scars will be carried for a very very long time. It is easy for us as adults to rationalise what happened but they cannot forget and they will not forget. 
Whanau and hapu organisations have talked to me personally about the traumatic reinforcing of the marginalisation and fear of the Crown since a history of abuse that goes right back to the original raupatu and to the police and military invasion of Rua Kenana’s community at Maungapohatu early in the last century. So for the Ruatoki community it has been another round of oppressive attacks by the armed State in the name of the law where people were held at gunpoint literally on the confiscation line. If people do not know what I am talking about they should read our history; it is very instructive.  
Why did the Crown do this? Did the Crown need to do this? Did the local police liaison people not know where to find Tame Iti who has been a resident of that area all his life and who is well known in the rohe as a social and community worker with local youth and community issues? As Tame Iti said many times: “Why didn’t the police just come and talk to me?”. 
But something else was being tested that day. It was the internationally motivated Terrorism Suppression Act. That day saw the fears of many of us that the Terrorism Suppression Act would be attempted to be used against the activist community and citizens who dared to challenge dominant culture views—particularly tangata whenua—would be at risk. And how right we turned out to be. 
Even though the police case was not accepted by the Solicitor-General the price is being and has been paid. The whole house of cards came down because the Solicitor-General said that it could not be called terrorism. It led to a bunch of charges that are currently partially before the court to this day. However the Supreme Court refused to allow some of the evidence that has been used in the latest case and the whole terrorism suppression meme that these people were a bunch of people about to destroy the fabric of Aotearoa New Zealand as we know it fell apart not only in the media not only for those who know about it but also in the face of the Supreme Court law. 
But people have to realise the cost that this has been to these communities and realise that people who had all their charges dropped are still paying thousands of dollars for their legal aid repayments. The 15 October debacle requires the following: no retrial apology to Tuhoe and an independent inquiry. And I just want to say as a citizen and MP—