New Zealand Parliamentary Debate

Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill [4464]

was not supporting it, but we do support it going to the select committee because National has for some years now recognised that the continued insertion of the phrase the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi into various enactments, without much guide as to what that phrase means, has given rise to a serious problem. More important, though, it has over the years in my view brought the Treaty claims process into disrepute. That is unfair, especially to the process, but more so to Maori who under that process seek fairness and reparation for injustices visited upon them in the previous 160 years. Bringing this matter to Parliament at least gives us all an opportunity to debate the issue and gives an opportunity for the public, who are concerned as well, to come and give their views.

National's support is qualified, however, and my colleague Chris Finlayson set out very clearly where we think the bill is deficient and how we will be proposing to improve it. The bill is deficient; it is flawed. Mind you, it is what we would expect of a party like New Zealand First, whose members are more concerned with posturing and wanting to make a political point. It is one thing to throw a bill together and to propose carte blanche-obviously without much thought as to the impact-the wholesale removal of certain clauses, just to make a political point, but it is another thing entirely to apply a measure of intelligence to what is a hugely important issue, to ensure that the bill does remedy the situation that we all think has arisen and that needs to be addressed, and also to avoid a situation where we might create more claims. It might give rise to fresh injustice and, as a consequence, new claims. Would it not be laughable if New Zealand First becomes responsible for legislation that creates a whole new gravy train, as they like to put it, of claims? This bill has the potential to do that.

I want to give two examples. The Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act states that the meaning of Ngai Tahu claims means all claims made at any time by any Ngai Tahu claimant and founded on rights arising in or by the Treaty of Waitangi, the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi-and it goes on, basically setting the heart of that settlement. I wonder whether New Zealand First realises that in that settlement, as with the others, it is ripping the heart out of those settlements. Why would it do that? It is because it is only trying to make political points. It would not do it because it is applying some intelligence. That is why my colleague Chris Finlayson has indicated clearly that there are categories of enactments where it is probably right and proper to remove that phrase, but there are other enactments where it is utterly ridiculous to take that phrase out-not unless we are going to remove only the two words the principles and leave in the Treaty of Waitangi.

I want to refer briefly to section 6 of the Treaty of Waitangi Act. Rodney Hide shows a lack of knowledge when he talks about the principles of the Treaty somehow arising in 1986. It is in the 1975 legislation. Mat Rata introduced that legislation. He knew exactly what he was doing when he introduced it, Maori knew too, because how can we refer only to the Treaty, when there are two versions-Maori and English? Maori mostly signed the Maori version. So if we are to have just the Treaty without a qualifying remark, what version are we to refer to? Mat Rata knew exactly what he was doing when he inserted that clause. We must take the two versions, and from those two versions we elicit some underlying principles. That is what he did then. He did not envisage that subsequent Governments would poke the Treaty everywhere, and make it a nullity.

This bill is flawed. It is typical of New Zealand First. This issue requires intelligence and it requires all of us as we debate this bill to show a measure of respect to the people who first brought in the Treaty process, introduced it in good faith, and wanted nothing more than the reconciliation of New Zealanders, one with another. We must bear that in mind as we see this bill go through the process.