New Zealand Parliamentary Debate

Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill [4460]

following words: He rangi ta matawhaiti, he rangi ta matawhanui. The person with a narrow vision sees a narrow horizon; the person with a wide vision sees a wide horizon. The Maori Party comes to this member's bill acutely aware of the need for an all- embracing approach to the Treaty of Waitangi to be viewed as the founding document of Aotearoa. The bill, however, restricts the view of the Treaty to its most minimalist state-a narrow vision for a narrow future.

The Treaty gives shape to this nation-as a key source of the Government's moral and political claim to legitimacy, and as a document that articulates the commitment of the Crown to tangata whenua to have their tino rangatiratanga preserved, Maori land ownership emphasised, and chiefly authority protected. It is a document of which Sir Robin Cooke, the then President of the Court of Appeal, said: It is simply the most important document in New Zealand's history... a nation cannot cast adrift from its own foundations. Yet this bill today is prepared to cut those ties, to cast the nation adrift by eliminating from all New Zealand statutes-all preambles, interpretations, schedule, regulations, and other provisos-any reference to principles.

One has to ask what is so offensive about the concept of having principles, or honouring the Treaty as the basis of our constitutional platform for Aotearoa. The Maori Party stands for Te Tiriti o Waitangi providing the base for constitutional change in our nation so that shared governance becomes a reality. Our tupuna entered into the Treaty as indigenous people with sovereign rights. They saw the Treaty as having both the capacity and the mana to act as a constitutional document for all people who live in this country. At its very heart, the Treaty is an exchange of promises between sovereign peoples, giving rise to obligations for each party-a promise that one part of the partnership is now trying to pull out of.

As with any partnership, the Treaty partnership is forever evolving. In the lands case in 1987, the Court of Appeal suggested that the Treaty should be interpreted as a living instrument, laying the foundation for an ongoing partnership between Maori and the Crown, which should be seen as an embryo rather than a fully developed and integrated set of ideas. Nurturing that embryo into full life requires the Treaty to be a living and dynamic document, to secure an enduring partnership.

But when the going gets tough, it seems some parts of the partner are running from their responsibilities. Dr Brash flew the white flag of defeat, well before the election, stating they would remove what he called racial nonsense, any references to the principles, from 39 pieces of legislation. When it came time to stitch together a coalition Government, Labour was prepared to throw away its so-called commitment to the Treaty by agreeing to support this bill going to select committee. And in a desperate attempt to get some media attention in this country, Winston Peters' bill, which was last voted down in June 2005, resurfaces under the name of Doug Woolerton.

The Maori Party will not renege on our responsibilities as part of Parliament and also to our constituency tangata whenua. We respect the fact that unless and until it is freely renegotiated between the Crown and Maori, the Treaty stands; it continues in being. Thank you all.

JUDY TURNER( Deputy Leader-United Future):

I rise on behalf of United Future to speak on the first reading of the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill. United Future will support the first reading, but it sticks in the craw of our throat to do so. I repeat a line I used last time we spoke on this bill, which is that it is a shabby vehicle, but it is the only one leaving the station, and we are very keen to hear from New Zealanders on this important issue. Our concerns are that whenever we pass legislation in this House that makes reference to the principles of the Treaty we have this extended diversionary debate at every step about what the principles are and why they not defined. We seem to spend an inordinate amount of time on this issue.