Prebble Richard: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Prebble Richard: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:21878] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I think that the Minister has shown us the opposite—how difficult the situation is—but first let me take up the challenge made earlier. The first statutory use of the words “principles of the Treaty” was in the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975—I was not actually an MP then; I know that people think I have been here since the ark but I actually came here in November of 1975—but that phrase was only in the preamble. 
The preamble of that Act stated it would: “… provide for the observance and confirmation of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi by establishing a Tribunal to make recommendations on claims relating to the practical application of the Treaty and to determine whether certain matters are inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty”. That was the first statement which was assented to on 10 October 1975. The Labour Government then suffered its biggest defeat in its history about a month later. 
 The second reference is in the State-Owned Enterprises Act—I think in section 9. There was some statutory comment but the comment by the Chief Justice was obiter; it was not part of the judgment. There has never been a judgment by our courts that has made the statements that the Chief Justice made in passing. The comment was not agreed to by the other judges and interestingly enough it is not agreed to by the Government. Chief Justice Cooke said that the treaty was a partnership whereas if we listened to what the Minister said we heard him give us five principles but they did not include “partnership” in them. So we have an interesting situation whereby the Minister has said we are following what judges say but he has also said: “Here are five principles.” 
I ask the Committee then where those five principles actually appear in the treaty. They do not. I tell the Minister that obviously there are principles in the treaty—[ 
Interruption 
] I would prefer it if the members did not conduct a conversation in the Chamber. They may not be interested in this matter but some of us are. 
There are three clauses in the treaty. In my view the principle in clause 1 is that it establishes sovereignty by the Crown. It is not that there are two states two Parliaments. It actually establishes sovereignty of the Crown. Sovereignty is ceded to Queen Victoria. 
The ACT party really likes clause 2 because it guarantees to Maori iwi and hapu their property rights and that is I believe the principle that this bill is actually trying to redress. The third clause granted Maori all the rights of British citizenship which one has to remember in 1840 were very considerable rights. They mean the right of equality before the law. 
Those are three simple principles. If the Minister were to say that those principles are what he supports—that he supports sovereignty property rights and equality before the law—then the ACT party would not have any difficulty in going along with that. 
But that is not what he has given us there. That statement made by Ministers has no legal authority at all bears little relationship to the Treaty of Waitangi and is the sort of waffly statement one would expect from a Labour Government. Where on earth does the treaty state “feasibility of cooperation” or something? Where does “self-management” appear in the treaty? Those statements are not there. 
Those matters there might be very worthy matters—it would be nice if the Labour Government did believe in self-management; I did not know that it did as I have never seen any sign of it; I thought it made a busy-body State—but they show the problem in successive Governments putting up the phrase “principles of the treaty” without being prepared to state in legislation what they actually are. 
I have to say to the New Zealand First Party that I have seen Mr Peters’ attempt but frankly I do not like it. I think—