Woolerton R Doug: Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill — First Reading 
Woolerton R Doug: Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:4452] 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 I move  
That the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill be now read a first time. 
 Before I get into the substance of my speech I would like to acknowledge our Labour colleagues. I know that sometimes fulfilling an obligation that is agreed on one’s behalf is not easy and I understand that it is not easy for our Labour colleagues this evening but we admire their dedication and we admire their honour. After all I have had my time of having to do those sorts of things myself. In supporting this bill going to the select committee I just hope our Labour colleagues get into the swing of saying yes and perhaps as it goes through the select committee process they will see the sense of this bill and say yes to it coming out at the other end and becoming law. So at the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Justice and Electoral Committee. I will move that later on in the piece. 
The Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill is about one simple thing. I want to say at the outset that New Zealand First is not against the Treaty of Waitangi. We are not against the Treaty of Waitangi being in legislation; we understand that and we honour the Treaty. But we believe that the word “principles” should be deleted and that is what this bill is about. I do not think everybody has understood that across the country up until now; certainly when talking to me people have not understood that clearly but that is what the bill is about. 
We understand—as the country does—that the Treaty of Waitangi is an important historical document. It gave all New Zealand citizens rights and protections as British subjects— 
Rodney Hide 
: Even me? 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: It gave them even to Mr Hide. It gave rights and protections as British subjects and contained a shared vision for the peoples of New Zealand to live in harmony which by and large we do. 
Almost 30 years ago it was understood that past grievances would need to be addressed and we have done that under the Treaty claims process. I believe for the large part that it has been done honourably and done properly. The Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 was well intentioned but it laid the foundations for an industry that to some degree has become self-serving and self-perpetuating. The situation was exacerbated in 1986 when ill-defined Treaty principles were added to statutes. I think it is important to say that when Sir Geoffrey Palmer was asked what the “principles” actually meant he said the principles were a flourish. They added a simple flourish. In his view they added something to the Treaty of Waitangi but he did not define what and described them as a simple flourish. 
It is important to remember that these principles were never part of the original Treaty. They became something of a judicial experiment in our view because Parliament chose not to define them. Some experiments work and some do not; in our view this one clearly does not. The consequences of their inclusion in our view from the very beginning has seen an ongoing process of protracted and expensive litigation that has done little more than fill the coffers of several large law firms and in particular of lawyers. 
Rodney Hide 
: How did Geoffrey Palmer get on? 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: Geoffrey Palmer—with due respect—has done quite nicely out of it as well. 
Their removal in our view will end this ridiculous situation. More important the existence of the word “principles” has not led to any tangible benefits for Maori. As we have said many many times in this House Maori progress like progress for non-Maori is based on a strong economic base and high-quality employment education health and housing. Inserting undefined principles into legislation does not achieve this. In fact what it does do is divert time and resources away from valuable programmes and projects into the types of activities described hitherto. We believe this must stop. 
There is a simple reason why the principles of the Treaty have not been defined. That is because they cannot be defined. One simple but fundamental solution to sort this out is to remove all references to indefinable and nebulous principles of the Treaty from our statute book. That is the purpose behind this bill that I am introducing to the House today. Most people in the House will remember that countless questions have been asked over many months—in fact over the last 18 years—about this. My leader and colleagues have asked questions in the House seeking an adequate definition of these principles but no affirmative answer has been forthcoming. With due respect the questions that I asked today and the answers I received from Michael Cullen on behalf of the Minister of Justice proved my point. This afternoon in question time I read out previous answers that the Prime Minister herself had given to those questions back in 2002. 
So we have not had adequate definitions of those principles to date. Even further we have gone to academics and other legal experts and asked them but the same reply has been given. There is no clear definition on widely diverse interpretations of what the principles might mean in certain circumstances. The simple answer is that the definitions have not been defined and they cannot be and we believe they should be removed. Again I repeat that this is not an attack on the Treaty. This is not an attack on the position of the Treaty either in the laws on our statue book or in our country or on the work that the Treaty of Waitangi builds upon year after year. We believe that both in our day-to-day lives and the way our caucus is made up and in the discussions we have in this Parliament we are sympathetic to the Treaty of Waitangi and the objects of it. But we think it demeans the Treaty if words are put in it that cannot be defined and that lead—in my words—to a bun fight on every single bit of legislation. We do not believe that is good for the country we do not believe that is good law and we seek by this bill to remove that word “principles”.