Ririnui Mita: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Ririnui Mita: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:606;Page:3770] 
3.  
MITA RIRINUI (NZ Labour—Waiariki) 
 to the  
Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: Has she received any further reports on “the so-called fourth article” of the Treaty of Waitangi? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 Yes I note the reassuring statement from Mrs te Heuheu in this morning’s  
Dominion Post 
 where she is reported as saying: “If this has raised any anxiety in the minds of the public I think they can take heart from the fact there is no claim based on article four.” The member is to be congratulated on her leadership on this matter. 
Mita Ririnui 
: What was the purpose of Governor Hobson’s statement that was read prior to the signing of the treaty: “The Government says the several faiths of England of the Wesleyans of Rome and also the Maori custom shall be alike protected ...”? 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you to reflect on how the Minister could have any responsibility for Governor Hobson’s intentions in 1840. I know that she sees herself as having a rather grandiose role in life! 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: In this case as the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations she is somewhat responsible for what Governor Hobson said and did. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Even I was not present in the past when he was around. I think that on balance I will move on to the next supplementary question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why is the Minister denying the existence of any such claim when on National Radio yesterday there was a long interview with such a claimant who was putting the case in respect of Mr Ririnui’s question and who claimed that such a clause did exist and on which he was basing his case? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: As Mrs te Heuheu noted it was not a claim on article 4; the matter was raised in the context of another claim. Certainly since 1840 certain claimants have raised this as an issue. The fact that it is raised as an issue does not make a fourth article. 
Stephen Franks 
: What will she do if her new Supreme Court judges decide that her rejection of the fourth article is not weighty legal authority on the treaty and decide instead to impose the fourth article agreeing with Justice Durie the chair of the Waitangi Tribunal when he said in relation to the fourth article that American precedent is undoubtedly correct in asserting that in treaties with indigenous people of oral tradition verbal promises are as much a part of the treaty as that subscribed to in the documentation? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I am pleased to see that the member accepts there will be a Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court gave leave for such an issue to be argued before it then obviously it would make its decision on the argument before it and that would have to be accepted in its context. 
Hon Bill English 
: Given the Minister’s statement yesterday that she believes there is no such thing as an article 4 will she do today what she did not do yesterday—that is give an undertaking to Parliament that she will instruct Government officials to stop referring to article 4 in public documents as they did in the Ministry of Health document  
Achieving Health For All People 
? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: As I recall yesterday I was asked to stop the tribunal from hearing the matter. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Answer the question. 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I am happy to answer the question. The Government accepts that there should be full debate and discussion on matters where there is public consultation as there was in this particular case relating to the health document. Just because people discuss this matter and put it in a working document does not mean that it is Government policy. If however we were to do as that member wants then we would be at risk of being contrary to freedom of speech under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. 
Metiria Turei 
: Given that the Minister has said she will not be instructing the Waitangi Tribunal to refuse to consider article 4 if it arises in treaty claims does she acknowledge that the Crown has caused a devastating effect on the Maori community in restricting Maori religious freedom under legislation such as the Tohunga Suppression Act of 1908? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: There is certainly evidence in relation to that Act that there was suppression of belief. That is what was being alluded to at the time of the signing of the treaty—that there should be freedom of religious belief whether it be Christian or Maori belief. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can I take it from the Minister’s answer to Stephen Franks that the relevance and existence of what has been referred to as article 4 would be a decision made by the future Supreme Court that she seeks to appoint—politically appointed or otherwise? Can I take it that it would be the court’s decision and not one made by this Parliament? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The Supreme Court will be there to interpret law not make law. Making law is the business of this House. If however an argument is put to it and there is no law relating to the fourth article then obviously there would be a decision that would say it is not law. 
Stephen Franks 
: To try to understand the Minister’s answers is it correct that the Minister said that if the judges of the Supreme Court hold there is a fourth article that will prevail; if so what weight can New Zealanders place on the Prime Minister’s denial last week and the Minister’s denial yesterday that there is a fourth article and the attempted reassurance that we need not worry about it? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The only possible reason they could hold there is a fourth article would be if it were recognised in legislation and it is not.