Paraone Pita: Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill — Second Reading 
Paraone Pita: Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:12877] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
 on behalf of  
R Doug Woolerton (NZ First) 
: I move  
That the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill be now read a second time 
. Tena koe Madam Assistant Speaker. Let me begin today by acknowledging the good work that many on the Justice and Electoral Committee did in spite of my being the only one on the committee who actually supported the bill. But I want to thank them for allowing the process of this bill to take place in the way that it did. I mention this having known that in the time I had my caucus colleagues and I would possibly be the only members of this House to be supportive of this bill. In this regard I acknowledge the support given by the Labour Government in keeping to the undertaking it gave in the confidence and supply agreement between the Government and New Zealand First. 
We know that the passage of the first reading of this bill caused some angst among Labour’s Maori MPs but it should not have. Let me make particular mention of the member Chris Finlayson from National who made an effort to understand the intent and purpose of the bill and who actually provided some useful ideas on how it could be improved particularly in relation to the issue of Treaty settlements. I say “Tena koe Chris.” 
But you see one particular party in this Parliament aided by its fellow travellers in another has been peddling a litany of untruths in relation to this bill. This political party has let its veil slip revealing the intent of its separatist agenda and has chosen to use deceit and untruths rather than confront this issue in an honest way. 
Hone Harawira 
: Oh oh. 
PITA PARAONE 
: You see we can excuse the member for Te Tai Tokerau for not understanding the bill because it is clearly beyond him but his colleagues are not stupid. They know exactly the extent of their untruths and how they have distorted debate on this bill. Rather than take the honourable and honest path they have chosen to distort the facts. And what is most regrettable is that nobody has held them to account for it. They have told the most blatant untruths in relation to this bill and have never corrected them—not once. 
The member for Tamaki Makaurau knew all along that this bill was about the term “the principles of the Treaty” not the Treaty itself. Yet he and his cohorts continually peddled the untruth that the bill aimed to eliminate the Treaty itself. This was not an oversight; this was deliberate. If members do not believe me they should go through all the speeches on this bill that any member of his party has given. Both here and offshore they have spread their untruths by calling it the “Treaty Deletion Bill” and claiming that it aims to eradicate the Treaty. That is nonsense and untrue yet not once have they been taken to task over it. Well that is about to end. 
It is a lack of intestinal fortitude not to debate the facts and to continue to tell untruths in order to win one’s case. If they are so uncertain about their ability to debate the truth then they should go and find another job and stop wasting taxpayers’ money. That party’s continual displacement of the facts must end today. 
Hone Harawira 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I take exception to the comment that the Maori Party lacks intestinal fortitude and tells untruths. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I think the member needs to be very careful with his language. I thought he was talking about issues but I think he has strayed really to talking about parties telling untruths. So I ask him to desist from taking that line. 
PITA PARAONE 
: I am disappointed that the member who took the point of order could not face the tenor of such words when I know that he is quite used to providing something similar— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You made a ruling and I do not think that it is within the Standing Orders for the member to relitigate the issues of the point of order raised previously. I think he should really come back to the bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is right. The member speaking should not comment on the matter once it has been ruled on. 
PITA PARAONE 
: As a consequence of this campaign to not provide the facts relating to the bill three distinct features of the submissions made in relation to it stand out. Firstly there is the obvious and sometimes clearly deliberate misunderstanding of what the bill was aiming to achieve what it would achieve and what the exact wording of the bill was. Secondly there was an obsession with the wording of the explanatory note rather than the bill itself. Thirdly there was ongoing confusion about and lack of an exact definition of the so-called principles of the Treaty which highlights why the bill has been necessary all along. 
Many submitters were under the impression that the bill aimed to remove the Treaty of Waitangi from legislation; it does not. I suppose I cannot blame them too much given the publicity and the inaccurate comments made by a political party in terms of this bill. Anybody who actually read the exact wording of the bill rather than focusing just on propaganda by a party in this House would have realised that the bill related only to the terms “the principles of the Treaty” or “the Treaty and its principles” and not to the Treaty itself. These terms are relatively recent additions to New Zealand statutes and they have added great confusion and a huge amount of expensive litigious activity because they have not been adequately defined. 
The intent of the bill is not to undermine the place of the Treaty or to remove reference to the Treaty itself from legislation; it is to remove references to the contentious term “the principles” which has sprouted an equally confusing spread of attempts at definitions and policies none of which are coherent or clear. 
Many submitters were drawn to some of the more provocative language they described as being contained in the explanatory note rather than to the actual details of the bill. This is regrettable and shows an area where the bill might be improved in future because a sensible and constructive discussion could not ensue. It was a case of not dealing with the substance. One submitter maintained that everyone in New Zealand knew what the principles of the Treaty were to the extent that even primary school children knew what they were. When I asked him to articulate to the committee what these principles were he either could not or did not know. 
The most critical aspect of the select committee report is the recognition that confusion still reigns as to the lack of a clear and concise definition of the term “principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.” That is primarily because by its nature there cannot be one. Some will point to judicial and bureaucratic attempts at defining these terms but these definitions remain vague and unacceptable. That situation simply reinforces New Zealand First’s view that the bill is a necessary and much-needed development. Let me give members one example. Many people often point to the Lord Cooke ruling in relation to these terms and his use of the term “partnership” as one principle. But here is the problem. What type of partnership are we talking about—50:50 70:30 80:20 or whatever? Is it like a marriage or is it a business arrangement? It is simply not clear and all sorts of arrangements have resulted from the use of this term. Let me remind this House that it is here in Parliament that the laws of this country are made. It is therefore incumbent on us that the law is made clear. It should not be left to people or entities outside this House to clarify our laws. 
This bill is based on the premise that all New Zealanders should be treated equally. The Treaty or any other race-based proposition should not be the basis for different treatment by the Crown or its agencies. Access to services should be equal—not any less or any more preferential. If a person breaks the law the colour of that person’s skin should not determine the level of justice he or she receives. The nonsense surrounding the term “the principles of the Treaty” is based on the fact that some with the continued support of this House try to generate preferential treatment based on race. That is wrong— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: You’re not going to come back next time. 
PITA PARAONE 
:—and I hope that those who choose to interject will take a call in this House and tell us just what those principles are that they are talking about. The principles are not about hitting one another in this House either. It is time for the untruths to end and for honest debate to replace them and I remind the House of that. 
Further progress of this bill today may come to a halt but I assure the House that this bill will not be going away. As long as New Zealand First is here—and we will be here for a long time—this bill and its aims will always be here. Members have not heard the last of this bill. Tena koe Madam Assistant Speaker.