Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:662;Page:10310] 
2. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement regarding the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples that “It is an expression of aspiration; it will have no impact on New Zealand law”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes and it is worth noting that other countries such as Australia announced their support for the declaration in recent years and despite the member’s dire predictions Australia for instance has not been handed over in its entirety to its indigenous people. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: What does he say to legal expert Mai Chen who says that to the contrary affirming the principles of the declaration actually influences New Zealand courts and the Waitangi Tribunal? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Ms Chen would know that New Zealand courts have already imported reference to the declaration—in fact the draft declaration—into judgments in the New Zealand courts. As the member will know the Government is in constant negotiation with Maori about the regulation and ownership of resources and various other property rights. I have found the expectations of Maori to be pretty pragmatic and quite progressive where they are keen to get on with creating jobs lifting incomes and getting better education. Actually they are not that preoccupied with the declaration. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Does the Government’s affirmation of article 4 which gives indigenous people the right of self-determination autonomy and self-government mean that the Government will give to the Tuhoe what they are seeking which are those exact same things; if not what does it mean? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The answer to the question about Tuhoe is no. They will not be getting the right to self-government. The member knows that is a silly question. The member should understand the process: the Government has made a statement of affirmation of the declaration and the degree to which New Zealand affirms that declaration is in the statements made by Minister Sharples and Minister Power and by the Prime Minister. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Does the Government’s affirmation of article 26 which gives indigenous people the right to land that they have traditionally owned occupied or used— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Or used? 
Hon Phil Goff 
: —or used which actually covers the whole of New Zealand mean that individually owned land will now be subject to Treaty demands or was that affirmation just an empty gesture? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As the various statements from various Ministers have made plain issues to do with land are determined within New Zealand’s legal framework and the affirmation of the declaration does not make any change to that. However we are very pleased to see that Maori are keen on the idea of running their own lives which is completely different from Labour’s view which is that the Government should run their lives that they should be dependent and that there is nothing that Maori can do about that. 
Chris Tremain 
: Has the Prime Minister seen reports contradicting dire predictions of dangerous divisions between Maori and Pakeha? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It is not just reports that we have seen. As I said earlier the Government is interacting daily often on quite contentious issues with a range of Maori groups and doing so in a very positive and progressive manner. I think that the dire predictions by the Opposition are more to do with its loss of the Maori vote than anything else. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Does the Government’s affirmation of article 17 which requires the Government to seek consent from indigenous peoples before passing laws mean that Maori people have a veto over the laws; if not what does it mean? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As we have said any number of times all those processes carry on within the framework of New Zealand law. As it happens the current Government is in coalition with the Maori Party and we often seek its agreement to pass laws. That is democracy and we do not see what is wrong with that. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Does this Government have as its aspiration for New Zealand article 26 of the declaration which states: “Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands territories and resources which they have traditionally owned occupied or otherwise used or acquired.”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As I stated earlier all those matters related to land are dealt with in the current New Zealand framework which is not altogether straightforward because a common law tradition for instance recognises longstanding traditional occupation of land. We are negotiating every day with Maori interests over control of land and resources and we are doing so very productively. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is unusual for me to take a point of order on behalf of Rodney Hide but that was a very clear question about whether the Government has an aspiration. In the answer was a whole pile of stuff to do with dealing with the issue but the fundamental question as to whether that particular clause was the Government’s aspiration was not even addressed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is an interesting point of order but it is my interpretation listening to the Minister’s answer that in fact he explained what the Government’s aspiration was with respect to the treatment of land. Although it may not have been exactly the answer the member wanted to hear when a member asks that kind of question—about an aspiration—there is no specific answer to it. I do not think I can ask a Minister to give any particular answer to that kind of question. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think this is an important issue. It may be that you Mr Speaker could understand that from the Minister’s explanation but I think it is fair to say that most people in this House could not understand from his explanation whether it was the Government’s aspiration to hand land over to Maori. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I must say to the honourable member that it was a nice try but as the Speaker has to be the judge in these matters I have to base my judgment on what I understand from what the Minister said. That is the way I see the answer. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Do any of the affirmations in the declaration that the Government has agreed to represent an extension of Maori rights; if so where? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As I have said all the issues that have been referred to here will be dealt with inside the current legal framework of New Zealand. That is not a radical view; we have heard today that the US has now stated that it is reviewing its position on the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You will recall that that was a very specific question about whether any of those affirmations represent an extension of Maori rights. I would have thought I could get a direct answer to that question rather than a fudged answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have to agree on this occasion with the honourable Leader of the Opposition. It was a very specific question; there was no political loading in it. It asked whether the rights are extended in any way and I believe there is a real interest in the answer to that question. I ask the Hon Bill English to— 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I answered the question quite directly to say that all the issues that the members have referred to are dealt with within the existing legal framework of New Zealand. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will ask the honourable Leader of the Opposition to repeat his question so that everyone can hear it. The issue is about rights. Within the legal framework of New Zealand there may be subtle changes in the rights people have—I do not know; I am not an expert in this area. But I think an answer that more directly addresses the question the member asked is on this occasion warranted. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Do any of the articles in the declaration that the Government has just affirmed represent an extension of Maori rights; if so where? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The answer is the one I gave before: all Maori rights are subject to the existing legal framework in New Zealand and that does not change as a result of this affirmation. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If that answer was the answer that the Minister gave before you already indicated to the House that that was not satisfactory. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The slight difference in the answer given this time was that the Minister in answering it said that the rights that Maori have in New Zealand are determined by the current framework of our law and implied in that answer that there was therefore no change to the rights. If that was an incorrect interpretation I am sure further supplementary questions will elucidate the matter. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Does the Prime Minister accept each and every one of the 46 articles of the declaration as an expression of aspiration for New Zealand or are there some articles that the Prime Minister rejects? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The best exposition of the Government’s position on that is set out in the statement of affirmation that was read out by Minister Sharples in New York and Minister Power here. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not believe for a minute that that could be an answer in Parliament to a question of whether each of the articles is an expression of aspiration for the country. To say that something was read at 4.45 a.m. on the other side of the Earth is not a parliamentary answer to a question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have some sympathy with the member’s point of order because members of this House will not necessarily be familiar with the statement made by the Minister in New York. 
Hon Simon Power 
: It is the same statement; I read it yesterday. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well if in fact that is the statement read to the House and if that is what the Minister is saying then the Minister should be able to answer the question asked by the member. The member asked for elucidation on that statement and the House has not heard any elucidation. I invite the member to repeat his question. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Does the Government accept each and every article of the 46 articles as an expression of aspiration for New Zealand or are there some articles of the 46 that the Government does not accept? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The answer to that I suppose is no. We have made it clear that the Government affirms the statement subject to the existing legal framework of New Zealand remaining unchanged. The commentary on the declaration shows that some of the rights expressed in there are quite uncontentious—the right to freedom of religion property rights and so on—and some of them are more contentious. Whatever the nature of the articles there they are all subject to New Zealand’s existing legal framework which remains unchanged as a result of the affirmation.