Broken faith, broken trust and shattered justice

Tena tatou katoa



In November 2005, a group described as “concerned Pakeha” claimed responsibility for an attack on the Prime Minister’s Sandringham Road electorate office.



Flyers were found circulated around Ponsonby Road which stated that the attack was a protest against, and I want to quote from that text entitled Confiscation Day:



“This morning concerned Pakeha vented their anger and disgust at the Government’s attempts to steal, by confiscation, Maori land in the form of the Seabed and Foreshore Bill that is currently being disgracefully rammed through Parliament as part of a desperate back-room deal”.



“By attacking the electorate office of the chief instigator, the Prime Minister – who is due to abandon the mess she created by fleeing the country – we signal that a threshold has been crossed.



The broken glass symbolises the broken faith, broken trust and shattered justice; our axe symbolises the steadfastness of our determination”.



The ruthless Prime Minister will leave behind a vindictive law that will haunt this nation should the MPs be mad enough to pass it. Maori MPs complicit in this farce will never live down their betrayal. If this is destined to be Confiscation Day, then we have marked it.



We call upon all like-minded New Zealanders to take similar actions of their own to send a clear message that such a gross, blatantly racist injustice to the Maori people will never be accepted. Ake! Ake! Ake”



Well unfortunately, we didn’t have many like-minded New Zealanders in the House.



A month later, Tim Selwyn was arrested and charged with making a seditious statement, seditious conspiracy and conspiracy to commit criminal damage.



Mr Speaker, I have taken the time to share the statement of these “concerned Pakeha” because it raised in my mind, the vital issues at the essence of this Bill – what is the nature of justice, the injustice, the criminal offending that we are debating here tonight?



Is it the call for peaceful resistance?



Is it the concept of civil disobedience?



Is it the suppression of political expression?



Or is the real crime that of a desperate government; an universally unpopular Bill; the tragic consequences of Confiscation Day?



The seditious statement of Selwyn, in calling for “all like-minded New Zealanders” to vent their anger and disgust has eerie similarities with another challenge made to another Labour Government, decades ago.



The statement to the Labour Party came with conditions, that:

· the Treaty should be embodied in statute;

· the protection from sale of our lands;

· no more land confiscation and

· compensation for land stolen.

The statement came from Tahupotiki Wiremu Ratana and it arose in the context of negotiations with Michael Joseph Savage in 1936. In his negotiations with Savage, Ratana placed four objects on the table: a potato, a gold watch, a greenstone tiki and a huia feather.

He explained the potato was the ordinary Maori needing his land because "a potato cannot grow without soil."

The watch, which was broken, represented the broken machinery of Maori land law.

The tiki represented Maori mana and the huia feather was a sign of chieftainship, which Savage could wear if he were to take on the resolution of these issues so important to the Maori.

Over seventy years later, many Ratana supporters have asked whether indeed, it is timely to once again bring these four objects out on the table (if Labour can find them) and to assess whether the advancement of the people has occurred as anticipated so many years ago.

And this, Mr Speaker, is the lesson of history that this archaic and outmoded legislation reminds us of.

Whether it be the broken glass of the window or the broken glass of the watch, the core component remains – the broken faith, broken trust and shattered justice.

One only has to look at the comments of the public submissions to see ample evidence of the way in which the restrictions on the freedom of expression have led to broken trust.

Malcolm Harbrow drew on the judgements of Sir Kenneth Keith in concluding that strict interpretation of the law could outlaw, in effect, all political dissent; and we have heard some examples tonight from Mr Hide.

Sir Keith had argued that the law could be used to target peaceful protest or those advocating civil disobedience; including those whose political opinions were outside the mainstream.

Another submitter, Ashley Clarkson, summarised the concerns of the seventeen submissions, and I quote:

“The crime of sedition is an archaic law, which is clearly incompatible with the right to freedom of expression.

The right to freedom of expression in a democratic society should not be limited in any reasonable way, particularly not in such a way as to suppress legitimate dissent against the actions and policies of the Government of the day.”

Mr Speaker, it is of course, highly fitting that as we debate this Bill tonight, we remember that forty years ago, in the south-eastern Bolivian scrub-lands, the Cuban revolutionary, Che Guevera was executed.

Che Guevera rebelled against the onslaught of poverty, oppression and dis-enfranchisement throughout Latin America.

He stood up and he spoke out, he acted for the people. Indeed, his life serves as a reminder of the value of robust, uninhibited and open debate – as we would expect in a healthy democracy.

Mr Speaker, when we joined with the Greens, United Futures and Act – and I thank you all for that - to appeal to the Government to scrap these outdated, archaic laws, it was the principle of the freedom of expression that motivated our actions.

It was the call for justice which has been provoked by more than a century of previous prosecutions which act against this principle.

We recall the charges of sedition being laid on Tuhoe prophet, Rua Kenana, for his simple statement that “this country belongs to us, the Maoris”.

Sedition charges were also forced on Te Whiti o Rongomai and Tohu Kakahi for daring to encourage passive resistance. And amongst their seditious evidence was a statement, Naku te whenua, mine is the land. For this comment, Te Whiti was charged with:

“Wickedly, maliciously and seditiously contriving and intending to disturb the peace”.

Sedition charges were also thrown at my very good friend and life member of the Labour Party, the late Niko Tangaroa, Annette Sykes, Mike Smith and Tame Iti in 1995 in daring to share their views in a free and frank manner, at the Asian Development Bank conference.

It was interesting to look back at news reports of the time, and to learn the views of the then Labour leader, Helen Clark, who suggested:

“it is vital all political parties committed themselves to resolving the grievances which were behind the threats”.

Mr Speaker, it is not usually my practice to come to the House and ask that all parties pay heed to the advice of Helen Clark, but I will, on this occasion, make an exception.

For when one thinks about the charges that have incurred sedition prosecutions for Maori – we think about the Foreshore and Seabed Act; we think about land confiscation and alienation; we think about maintaining our right to our own cultural integrity.

It is indeed vital, that all political parties commit themselves to resolving the grievances.

When we think about the broken watch tended by Tahupotiki Wiremu Ratana; the broken glass that arose from the actions of ‘concerned Pakeha”; the broken faith, broken trust and shattered justice; it is obvious that repealing the seditious offence provisions are not the only actions that this Parliament must take, if we are truly to restore and rebuild the values of democracy.