Jones Dail: Business of Select Committees — Appointments 
Jones Dail: Business of Select Committees — Appointments 
[Volume:622;Page:18009] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 It is an interesting suggestion that has been put forward by the minority Labour Government and it has been put forward in a very interesting way by the Leader of the House Dr Cullen. I think I can agree with many of the things Dr Cullen said during the course of his speech. In agreeing with them I feel that those were reasons why this motion should not proceed. It was one of those situations where the more he spoke the more I thought he was speaking against the motion rather than for it. But I appreciate the open and frank way in which he approached this issue. It should be discussed in an open and frank manner because it is of vital importance to the future of New Zealand. 
New Zealand First takes the view that if we are to proceed in the way suggested by Dr Cullen—as I said I can go along with a lot of what he had to say—then time on this type of issue would be best spent by a royal commission. It should not be dealt with by members of Parliament who have many other things to do next year let alone sort out any future problems with the foreshore and seabed legislation and suchlike that might arise and that took a bit of time this year. There is a general election coming up next year and if the ACT party feels that it will not have any contribution to make afterwards then it can surely spend time on the select committee because it may not be around after the election. Maybe that is why Mr Hide wants an ACT member on the committee. I can see his point of view. 
New Zealand First expects to be busy electioneering next year with a view to being back in a more dominant position after the next election. So partly there is a practical reason for New Zealand First’s viewpoint. We have other things to do to help run the country rather than tie down a member on a select committee. 
If the job were done properly this committee would probably meet for 6 months. How long would the committee go for? It would go for quite a long time. I think Mr Dunne as chairperson elect agrees with me that this committee would have to sit for a considerable length of time. 
We have seen how the minority Labour Government operates on constitutional issues through for example the Privy Council matter and the Supreme Court legislation. The Supreme Court Act was rammed through this House. It had the support of only 38 percent of those able to vote at the last election yet it was rammed through the House. In fact the majority on both sides was the same: 38.1 percent of those eligible to vote at the last election voted for that Supreme Court legislation and 38.1 percent voted against. Yet the Labour Government rammed it through. 
There would be people who would come along to the parliamentary select committee and ask whether they were really wasting their time because as the Labour Government had proved that they had wasted their time in the past they would presume they would be wasting their time in the future. Once again if Prime Minister Helen Clark decides that a thing will go a certain way it will be done that way. Everybody in the Labour caucus will jump to heel supported by United Future— 
Nandor Tanczos 
: And the Greens. 
DAIL JONES 
:—and the Greens of course as Mr Tanczos interjected. We have only to note what has happened about the appointment of Margaret Wilson as Speaker. There was no consultation with New Zealand First but through an agreement with United Future and the Greens—bang!—it was done. So much for discussing that issue with other members of the House! Of course I take many of the points made by Dr Cullen about the United States and our constitution and I am reminded of a speech made by Winston Churchill in about 1946 quoted recently in  
The Economist. 
 He told an enraptured audience in Fulton Missouri that the Americans and the British must never cease to proclaim in fearless tones the great principles of freedom and the rights of man that are the joint inheritance of the English-speaking world—which through Magna Carta the Bill of Rights habeas corpus trial by jury and English common law I go on to say are the basis of New Zealand’s unwritten constitution. 
Those are the foundation stones of the way in which New Zealand operates. They have served and will continue to serve New Zealand well. One would feel that this committee that was suggested by the minority Labour Government would be a partisan committee—based on the experience I have had at any rate in the last 2½ years in this House. 
Of course one of the things I would have liked to see in the terms of reference is a question as to whether New Zealand is independent and further if we are independent from Britain what our independence day is. That is a question that might create some interest. Some people might say a date in 1835 some people might say 6 February 1840 and other people might have other dates. That particular issue will have importance I think when we look at Peter Dunne’s bill later on about what date New Zealand Day should be. Should New Zealand Day be the same as the day on which New Zealand obtained its independence? I suggest that that date was 21 November 1947 at the time of the passing of the Statute of Westminster legislation because until that legislation was passed this House for example was unable to get rid of the Legislative Council. That council was established by legislation in 1852 and until the Statute of Westminster legislation was passed this House was still bound by an Act of Parliament passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. So the “consent and reply” legislation had to be passed in 1947 and it was only then that this legislature was able to move on in the early 1950s to get rid of the Legislative Council. I would think then that at some stage or another and in the course of a royal commission on the issue New Zealand would consider just what day New Zealand’s independence day is and whether we should be celebrating an independence day or something along those lines. 
One question about the Treaty of Waitangi has been issued. There are various views on the treaty and one view questions whether a minor naval official could enter into a documented agreement—which he thought he would call a treaty but he could have called it anything he liked—with a group of people who were virtually stone-age barbarians and who were unable to read and write in a country they did not have possession of and authority over— 
John Tamihere 
: We’re talking about New Zealand not Pakistan. 
DAIL JONES 
: The racist member Mr Tamihere can keep on with his remarks. But if we look at say the Montevideo Convention we can say for sure that the Treaty of Waitangi was not a treaty. The reason is that it did not comply with the requirements of two parties who were sovereign in their countries because both parties had to have clearly sovereignty-defined territory. So in that sense the so-called Treaty of Waitangi can never be a treaty. Mr Brownlee has raised an interesting point but just as New Zealand First is not interested in supporting the Government’s motion so of course it is not interested in supporting the National Party’s motion which is based on a feeling of over-importance on the part of the National Party in this House. From what I can recall Mr Brownlee said that the membership should comprise four Labour members three National members and one member from New Zealand First. We know that the sense of proportionality has been knocked out of the window altogether there. If the committee is ever to be effective it should have a membership of four two and one. So what that amendment betrays is as I said the feeling of over-importance the National Party has in this House. One will have to wait and see after the next election whether even a four-two-one situation will be appropriate. 
This is a very interesting situation and any future development of New Zealand’s history I say is a matter of the constitution written or unwritten. People might say that on a particular day in Parliament this matter was debated and a select committee was established but New Zealand First does not want to be part of that select committee because on the evidence we have had in just this past 2½ years we cannot believe that the Labour Party will act fairly. We have seen evidence of that with the Supreme Court Bill. We know for example that the Greens said they would listen to the voice of the Maori people but when the legislation came through and Maori were opposed to that bill the Greens still went ahead and supported it. It was just the Greens and Labour who pushed that bill through this House by the slimmest of majorities. So the Labour Party if it wants to do anything it will do it. 
I think that in all fairness the best way to consider this issue is to give a royal commission a broad-brush set of instructions and that will encourage all New Zealanders to go to that royal commission knowing they will be given a fair hearing and a fair conclusion. At the end of the day whatever happens New Zealand First will expect to see a referendum to give effect to whatever the decision will be. That is totally in keeping with New Zealand First’s view. I notice nodding heads but I will not name the members. Time will tell whether that will be the case.