New Zealand Parliamentary Debate

Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill [4461]

One of the concerns we have is that whenever we refer to principles or to the spirit of a document, we risk watering down the original text. In regard to this matter, when we refer to the principles of the Treaty, we would ask what that does to the original text. Some speakers have made out that there is no understanding in any department regarding what these principles are, but I think that is false. Substantial work has been done in several quarters about the principles of the Treaty and that is part of the discussion I would like to have as to whether quantifying that and agreeing on it could be helpful. Rather than eliminating the phrase, we could deepen our understanding, so that when we refer to the principles of the Treaty, if that is considered a desirable way forward, we understand what we mean by that, very, very clearly.

One of the things that most disturbs me about this bill is some of the comments in the explanatory note. For instance, the sponsor of this bill has said that he does not want to get rid of references to the Treaty, but actually he does because clearly he wants to eliminate all references to the expression Treaty of Waitangi and its principles. I think that is a disturbing thing. If New Zealand First members wanted to resubmit the bill with a different flavour they should have changed the commentary and made that clear. They were too lazy to do that, and I find that disturbing.

New Zealand First members talk about the opportunity that they believe this expression offers judges to become increasingly activist and liberal in their interpretation of the law, and I think that discussion needs to be had to see whether clarity can be brought to it. Then it gets a bit more disturbing. They say under their third point in the explanatory note that as far as they are aware, references to the principles of the Treaty have had no tangible benefit to date for Maori. I like the example mentioned by the Green member when she referred to the principle of active protection, I think was the term she used, as it applied to te reo, and the good work that was able to do.

The phrase in the explanatory note that really upsets me, after stating that there has been no benefit to Maori from having references to the Treaty's principles, states:... it has also surreptitiously created unrealistic expectations among Maori in relation to their entitlements from society. I hope I am not the only one who finds that statement extremely disturbing. I would like to think that submitters to this bill will pick up on the commentary, because it certainly is a very strong flavour that affects the bill.

United Future will support the bill because we believe that discussions could be had that could be advantageous. But, beyond the first reading, unless there are substantial changes, we will support it no further.

RODNEY HIDE( Leader-ACT):

I know that my speech is awaited with eager anticipation, as it will indicate which way the ACT party will throw its mighty weight. It is surprising that the principles-

Shane Jones

: Foxtrot!

RODNEY HIDE

: Well, the jealousy of this Labour Party knows no end.

It is amazing how this real accident of the principles of the Treaty being inserted into our legislation could achieve such constitutional status and have such high-minded speeches being given about it. The truth of what happened is that in the State-Owned Enterprises Act that Geoffrey Palmer was negotiating with Maori, he thought he had pulled a fast one because he put in the provision about the principles of the Treaty. Maori felt really good about that.

Geoffrey Palmer then went back to Cabinet and told them not to worry, that it did not mean anything. That is what Sir Geoffrey Palmer said-that putting the principles of the Treaty into legislation did not mean anything. Then the discussion around the Cabinet table was that normally judges like to think that the experience of putting something into legislation must mean something, and that Parliament would have intended something. But Sir Geoffrey Palmer said: No, it's OK. It doesn't mean anything. Of