Turner Judy: Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill — First Reading 
Turner Judy: Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21177] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak to the first reading of the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill. United Future will tentatively cautiously and in some sectors reluctantly support this first reading because of the opportunity that it affords us as a country to have the discussion that is needed. 
At present in New Zealand the treaty is most frequently known in a grievance context and the mentioning of principles appears to me to be an attempt at suggesting some current application which is the discussion that United Future believes needs to happen. We think that this bill is a shabby vehicle but it is the only one leaving the station and we are very keen to hear from New Zealanders about this very important issue. However do we think it is an election year gimmick? Yes we do. It is appalling to think that the author of this bill has legal training because this bill creates a legal vacuum—although it is unsurprising that we are dealing with a vacuum when we consider that that is the kind of possibility a Government would face if it were forced to work with New Zealand First. 
In the explanatory note Winston Peters’ criticism of Maori having unrealistic expectations of them being anchored in the past and his claim that references to the principles of the treaty are divisive show that he is really uninformed about things Maori and of the concerns of many iwi. It is interesting to note that the attempt to define the principles of the treaty has actually happened. The Waitangi Tribunal came out with five rather interesting concepts to describe those principles: partnership good faith active protection compromise and the duty to consult. An interesting exercise—certainly this legislation in its current form provides no opportunity for it and United Future would like to see it happen at a select committee—would be a discussion on whether it is possible to define the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi seeing that that is the call on people’s hearts and minds that we constantly hear asked in this House. An interesting and more productive exercise would be to try to quantify those principles. Certainly the Waitangi Tribunal the courts and others have suggested some interpretation of the principles. Some good discussion fodder is already in existence that could make quantifying those principles a very real discussion issue. 
The interesting thing about this shabby legislation is that it does not actually appear to fix the problems that the sponsor intends it to fix. For instance just removing this terminology does not mean that the requirement to consult Maori would be removed. Therefore it is unusual that that is stated as being one of the intentions yet the bill would not actually accomplish that goal. 
The second thing this bill does not do is remove the requirement to develop Maori capacity for participation yet I think that that is Mr Peters’ intention. The commentary lays out a whole set of goals yet when we look very carefully at what is on offer we see that the bill does not actually accomplish quite a number of its significant goals. United Future will provide the opportunity for discussion on this bill. However without hugely substantial changes our support will go no further.