Fairbrother Russell: Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill — First Reading 
Fairbrother Russell: Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21180] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) 
: 
 As I move around the electorate of Napier I see in the schools in the family settings in the social clubs and in the workplace tearooms the expressions of the two quite distinct cultures of this country—the Pakeha culture and the Maori culture. I will never be Maori as much as many Maori will never be Pakeha. It is a fact of life that we have two distinct cultures. That is one of the strengths of our country and we celebrate it in many many ways. 
When I picked up this bill I thought “Gosh this man might be heading in the right direction” because Winston Peters identifies a problem that has to be dealt with at some stage. But of course as the honourable Winston Peters stumbled towards the problem he took a 180-degree turn in the wrong direction. It is not a question of removing the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi; it is a matter of growing up and expressing the principles with perhaps greater clarity. It has been 20 years since an Act first embodied a reference to the Treaty of Waitangi. In that 20 years our development of thought and knowledge the growth of the Maori culture and the accommodation of it by Europeans in this country has been exponential. It is now a force that cannot be stopped. 
We have in legislation a reference to the Treaty of Waitangi. It is a vague reference but it is all that we have at this stage because nobody is yet prepared to do the hard work to identify what each Act of Parliament should do which is to define the powers the obligations the functions and the prohibitive behaviour that should occur. Until someone is prepared to do that we need the reference to the Treaty of Waitangi for the courts to fill the void that is left by legislation that does not face up to the reality of what the treaty sets out to achieve. 
The Treaty of Waitangi is a constitutional document. One can never define the principles in any definitive way because they must be extracted on a situation by situation basis. Thus until we can move our legislation to identify the remedy to be reached by statute—the mischief to be solved by legislation in reference to the Treaty of Waitangi—then reference to “the principles” leaves it to the growing jurisprudence of the courts to determine what that should be. As we develop and grow up over the next few years we will move from the uncertain reference of “the principles” to the specific reference of the mischief that seeks to be solved by an Act of Parliament. 
This is of course part of the growth process that we are all going through as we address the difference in cultures in what really is a diverse country where many people can live in harmony and where diversity is a strength. It is not a question of race as to whether one is Maori. Of course if one is Maori one can be part of the Maori culture. The question that the treaty seeks to deal with is the coercive power of the Government as it deals between the two cultures. When we address the coercive power of the Government in legislation we need some reference to the treaty because that is the basis on which we all came to be here. It is the basis on which the Maori race can continue with their cultural values. I have to say that if after 1840 we had 3½ million Maori and only 500000 Pakeha then Pakeha would be claiming the Treaty of Waitangi as their document and their right to live in this country. It is not a document that is for Maori or for Pakeha. It is the foundation document for our society in this country. Until we can move as a mature Parliament to analyse in each piece of legislation the mischief that is to be solved by reference to the Treaty of Waitangi then we must continue with this shorthand of “the principles”. One day we will move as a House to sit down and identify the mischief that each piece of legislation must set out to achieve and as part of that identification we will be explicit as to how the treaty is involved. Once we are explicit in the legislation we can move away from that general reference to the principles of the treaty. But until we mature as a society as a Parliament and as select committees and we can look at the principles rather than trying to break it down in some divisive way—until we can look at what we are trying to achieve—then we are left with that shorthand of “the principles” and we leave it to the judges to apply them in specific situations. 
I look forward to the day when we move on and when Winston Peters comes back with another bill that outlines that each piece of legislation should identify how the treaty is applied to the mischief that the legislation sets out to solve. I will be voting against the bill because it ends up by being destructive although it started on a course that offered some hope when I first picked it up. The bill is a step in the right direction but it takes a 180-degree turn in the wrong direction. Instead of promoting harmony in this country it seeks to achieve the opposite. I will be voting against the bill.