te Heuheu Georgina: Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill — Second Reading 
te Heuheu Georgina: Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:12887] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I am very pleased to take a call on the bill before us. I find it ironic that New Zealand First which is the party that promulgated the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill now finds itself in the ignominious situation of having to write a minority report on it. That has to be a first for this Parliament I would have thought. It flags that all the other parties across the House have found this bill to be of no merit whatsoever. I think that New Zealand First should learn something from that. Hopefully New Zealand First will look at all of the speeches that have been given here this afternoon so far—and I support all of the speakers who have rejected this bill—and understand exactly why the bill they propose is a nonsense and has the potential to set back the whole Treaty and to upset an ongoing dialogue between Maori and the Crown. It is a dialogue that was promised in the Treaty itself and that were this bill allowed to go through would result in claims such as we would never imagine could happen. 
Would that not be ironic as well that the very party that says that the principles of the Treaty have led to untold complications over the last 20 years would be the one responsible for creating a whole new gravy train of claims as New Zealand First members like to put it? 
I think it is absolutely right that all parties in this House oppose this legislation. Although National supported it to its first reading we did so because we felt there was some merit in examining some of the places where the phrase “the principles of the Treaty” have been inserted—for example some legislation. But overall the Justice and Electoral Committee having examined the bill has come to the right conclusion which is that by and large this bill is completely without merit. 
In my first reading speech I talked about the jurisdiction of the Waitangi Tribunal and the 1975 legislation that places that jurisdiction before us. Quite frankly I do not think that New Zealand First members had any idea at all that section 6 of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 was where the phrase first surfaced. They never mention it. It is not mentioned in their bill. I do not recall any of them mentioning it in their first reading speeches. I find it absolutely appalling that a political party that presents itself as being responsible and caring about the future of New Zealand would promote a bill in this Chamber the source of which for the substance of it they have no idea. 
Section 6 was never mentioned as far as I can tell. Section 6 sets out the jurisdiction of the Waitangi Tribunal. In my view it deliberately refers to “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” which is the phrase that New Zealand First so objects to. There is a good reason for it and I will give credit to Matiu Rata from the north who would probably be turning in his grave right now at his whanaunga Pita Paraone and at the speech he gave about this bill. I give credit to Matiu Rata for realising that yes there is a Treaty of Waitangi but there are two versions of it. So if we are going to create legislation that talks about the Treaty of Waitangi which version are the courts or Parliament going to refer to? 
What Matiu Rata did—because he is far more intelligent than anybody who promoted this bill in my view—was provide for both the English version and the Maori version in that legislation. Why did he do that? Because he had to in my view. He had to because the English version was obviously going to be put in but the Maori version had to be put in because that is the version most Maori signed. So if we are going to take out the phrase “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” and leave “the Treaty of Waitangi” which version? As I said I credit Matiu Rata with the understanding and appreciation of the importance of including both those versions and of leaving it to the tribunal and subsequently to the courts as has happened to discern the underlying principles that come from a reading of both versions. 
That is why we have that phrase “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” in our legislation. It is a proper reason to have it there. I will agree with my colleague Chris Finlayson that in some instances we should maybe be more specific about what we mean by that phrase but generally speaking when there are two versions of a Treaty—the Maori version having been the one signed by our tupuna—then we must include them both. What do we do when we are interpreting and measuring Crown action against those versions? We look for the underlying principle: the spirit of the Treaty. 
 That is what we have been doing I would have thought in a very measured sensible way as best we can over the last 20 years looking for those principles eliciting the essence of the Treaty and trying to find our way forward towards reconciling those things that Maori were guaranteed those things that the Crown undertook to protect and those things that the Crown in its role as the Government must also make sure it adheres to on behalf of all New Zealanders. That is the purpose of that phrase. 
I urge Pita Paraone in particular to think hard about that. It absolutely pains me when he talks about the Treaty as being some race-based proposition. As Dr Cullen said there were two peoples who came together. One happened to be ethnic Maori the other happened to be ethnic English. That does not make it a race-based proposition for goodness’ sake! I just do not know where Pita Paraone comes off saying that. It is an appalling statement that that member makes in my view. 
We have a basis for finding our way in this relationship between Maori and all other New Zealanders and for recognising that Maori have a special place in New Zealand by virtue of the Treaty. It could have been some other group of people who were here; it happened to be Maori. They have a special place in this country as tangata whenua and that special place is recognised in the Treaty through the guarantees that were given to them of certain protections. 
New Zealand First has been here for 10 years and prides itself on being a good party no matter what the issue is. Again it also amazes me that this party after all these years of asking what the principles are—which my colleague Chris Finlayson in his first reading speech had read into  
Hansard 
 I might say if anybody is interested in looking at them—is still asking that question. What is the New Zealand public to make of that? I will tell members what some people will make of it. A year before the election next year this party as it always does before an election loves to raise the spectre of the Treaty race or Maori. Those members love to do that. That is their legacy and that will be the legacy of Pita Paraone if he is not careful. I would not like to have that legacy. 
I will just conclude with a quote from Sir Henry Ngata who was giving evidence in one of the cases before the court. He said that “… a contentious matter”—and I think that even I would concede that it is a contentious matter—“such as the Treaty will yield to those who study it whatever they seek. If they look for difficulties and obstacles they will find them.”—they will find them—“If they are prepared to regard it as an obligation of honour they will find that the Treaty is well capable of implementation.” And I would ask New Zealand First members to set aside this ridiculous mantra that they are intent on and to think about the honour of the Crown the place of Maori in New Zealand and the duty that lies before us as parliamentarians to show leadership and to reconcile our peoples in this country as we go forward.