New Zealand Parliamentary Debate

Questions for Oral Answer [4418]

Treaty of Waitangi-Principles

6.

R DOUG WOOLERTON( NZ First)

to the Minister of Justice: What reports has he received on the different versions and interpretations contained in documents, publications, and other information campaigns that have attempted to define the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, and can he advise the House what the Government's definition of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi is?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN( Leader of the House)

on behalf of the Minister of Justice: Many. In 1989 the Government released five principles by which it would act when dealing with issues that arise from the Treaty of Waitangi, and I will be quite happy to table that particular document again, because no Government since that point has actually rejected or amended it. In relation to references in legislation, those, of course, are matters for the courts to interpret, but, to give greater clarity, this Government has adopted the practice of giving a greater degree of definition, of specificity, to those references in order that such interpretation does not occur simply in the abstract.

R Doug Woolerton

: Is he aware that when asked what the Government's definition of the principles was in 2002, the Prime Minister stated: I am not aware of an official Government statement on the principles of the treaty.; and what has changed between then and now that has enabled him to provide a definitive answer on behalf of the Government?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN

: It is flattering to note that I gave a definitive answer in relation to that principal question. In fact, I have references to correspondence issued by the Prime Minister where she makes reference to that 1989 statement.

R Doug Woolerton

: Is he aware that in 2002, when asked to define the principles, the Prime Minister stated that the principles had preoccupied the courts, the legal profession, Maoridom, and the Government for many years. This process is clearly an ongoing matter., but declined to define them, and does he not realise that this lack of definition has come at a huge cost to this country, both fiscally and socially?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN

: That, I think, was in the context of the interpretation of legislation. That still remains a matter for the courts, and one reason it is left in that form is that the interpretation is not necessarily fixed through all time in all circumstances. Because the nature of society changes, the nature of the relevant framework changes. That is also a reason why this Government has adopted the process of giving greater clarity to any such references, so that it is not a purely abstract consideration. I seek leave to table the 1989 document.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Taito Phillip Field-Ingram Report

7.

Dr WAYNE MAPP( National-North Shore)

to the Minister of Labour: Has the Department of Labour undertaken a full review of the Ingram report to determine if it should investigate whether or not Taito Phillip Field has breached New Zealand employment laws; if not, why not?

Hon RUTH DYSON( Minister of Labour):

I am advised that the department has studied the report and found no evidence that an employment relationship existed in this case, and therefore there was no evidence of a breach of employment law. I want to thank the member for drawing the attention of the House to the fact that New Zealand does not have any legislative protection for people who may contract not in their own best interests, that is, contract below market rates, which was the point made in the Ingram report, rather than below minimum wage. I look forward to the support of the