Tanczos Nandor: Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill — First Reading 
Tanczos Nandor: Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21176] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will vote against this bill not because we support the redefinition of treaty rights by reference to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. We do not support that and we have taken a principled position to uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi—the Maori language version. If this bill had sought to address that problem and if it had simply removed the term “principles” we might have voted for it. But the Rt Hon Winston Peters is being tricky. He says that this bill is not an attack on the treaty itself and then he proceeds to attack anything that would implement the treaty. He speaks of going back to the treaty itself but to the best of my knowledge he has shown neither comprehension of what it states nor support for its recognition. When I have mentioned te tiriti in this House the Rt Hon Winston Peters has asked: “What’s that?” so I recommend that the member undertake some of the treaty education that he is so quick to denounce. 
The Green Party agrees that we should go back to the treaty itself. That is why we did not support raupatu last year as New Zealand First did over the foreshore and seabed issue. Let me say for Mr Peters’ sake and for Mr Perry’s sake that being Pakeha does not exclude me from participating in this debate. Tangata whenua do not depend on the treaty either to be in this country or to assert their rights as indigenous people. The treaty affirms the rights of tangata whenua; it does not create them. It is Pakeha who have the most to gain from upholding the treaty because the treaty gives us an honourable place in this land. Let me also say that people are sadly mistaken if like Gerry Brownlee they think they can dispose of the treaty by simply making some small restitution for stolen Maori land. The settlement of past injustices is certainly necessary in order to move forward but when we get to the future the treaty will still be there because it is about the ongoing relationship between tangata whenua and tangata tiriti. 
Mr Peters makes great play about how different people interpret the principles of the treaty differently. Well of course they do. People have vastly different interpretations of what the treaty itself means. It is a constitutional document and constitutional documents and principles are always the subject of debate. By way of illustration I invite members to tell me what we mean by free speech. But perhaps that is an unfair question judging by the conformity of the New Zealand First caucus. The principles of the treaty have been clearly elaborated by the Waitangi Tribunal by the Court of Appeal and by the Government itself—such as in 2000 when it outlined the treaty settlement process. It is not very hard for most people if they put their minds to it just a little bit to get the essence of what is meant by the principles of the treaty and pointing out that there are varying interpretations of those principles is in my view a very weak argument for deleting reference to them. 
I will not expound on the various components of what the principles may mean. Mita Ririnui already did that before the dinner break and temporarily silenced the baying jackals to my right but I note that the silence was only temporary. The Green Party is not in the business of defending a redefinition and in our view a weakening of what the treaty actually means but neither are the Greens about to support a bill that removes almost every legislative mention of the treaty. Mr Peters is being disingenuous. In the guise of going back to the words of the treaty he would take us back to the time of Chief Justice Prendergast and the description of the treaty as a nullity.