Losing Privy Council a 'threat' to Maori rights

By JO-MARIE BROWN

Maori opposed to abolishing the right of appeal to the Privy Council say the establishment of a new Supreme Court poses a threat to tangata whenua interests.

Parliament's justice and electoral select committee yesterday heard submissions in Rotorua from Maori leaders who oppose the Supreme Court bill, saying it is premature and ill-conceived.

Anthony Te Uruhi Wihapi, speaking on behalf of Te Arawa No 1 Maori executive committee working party, said New Zealand first needed to adopt a written constitution and the Treaty of Waitangi into law before a Supreme Court should be set up.

"We believe until the Treaty of Waitangi is formally incorporated into New Zealand law we cannot support the final cutting of ties with the Privy Council as it is not the Privy Council that is the important tie but rather our tie to the English monarch," said Mr Wihapi.

The Treaty of Waitangi was an agreement between Maori and London, not Wellington, and the establishment of a Supreme Court would significantly alter that relationship, select committee MPs were told.

Mr Wihapi said New Zealand was far too small a country to ensure judicial independence and objectivity.

He said potential Supreme Court Justices would need further training on issues of indigenous rights and Treaty of Waitangi interpretation.

"It's our submission that we do not have a properly experienced Judiciary who might be able to define and interpret our own constitutional history.

"We believe our current New Zealand Court of Appeal has no such experience or competency."

Retired Maori Land Court judge, Heta Hingston, speaking on behalf of Ngati Tuwharetoa and Te Heuheu family, said he disagreed with the notion that a Supreme Court would be beneficial because judges would better understand local conditions and customs.

"Access to the Privy Council gives us access to an independent mutual forum which we see as paramount in Maori cases, which are often against the Crown and involve the clarification of treaty guaranteed rights and responsibilities," said Mr Hingston.

Removing such matters away from New Zealand's political, legal and social environment was therefore an advantage.

The argument that taking cases to the Privy Council was too expensive and prohibited access to justice was also countered by Mr Hingston.

"Our people have a background of taking the hat round to get the money to go to the Privy Council ... In cases of importance, we will find the money."

Mataatua District Maori Council spokesman Maanu Paul questioned why Maori should have to give up appeal rights to the Privy Council when the system had worked well for them.

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

The Government was not entitled to arbitrarily sign away the rights Maori had under article three of the Treaty of Waitangi which included the right to have their cases heard by the Privy Council, said Mr Paul.

"Each of the 954 hapu need to agree that they relinquish their right to have their case heard by the Privy Council. Until this happens the bill should not be enacted."