Finlayson Christopher: New Zealand Day Bill — Second Reading 
Finlayson Christopher: New Zealand Day Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:9333] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I must say that even when the MP for Ohariu-Belmont Peter Dunne is talking gibberish he looks and sounds statesmanlike and I applaud him for that. Mr Dunne said in his second reading speech that the New Zealand Day Bill was introduced by him in 2005 but it was not actually. It was introduced in October 2004 and it languished for some years in the Justice and Electoral Committee until earlier this year. But under the dynamic and tough chair of our select committee Lynne Pillay we managed to get on to it in about March. She demanded that we look at this bill with some urgency so we all obeyed. We read the submissions although we did not hear oral submissions and the bill has been reported back to the House. 
As the commentary on the bill states the select committee recommends that the bill not be passed. We saw no benefit in renaming Waitangi Day as New Zealand Day. 
It is very interesting to look very closely at the legislative history over many years because the legislative history is important. Indeed history is important. I remind the member for Ohariu-Belmont of the words of Cicero: “Not to know what happened before one was born is always to be a boy.”; or as Mr Henare would say: “Nescireautem quid ante quamnatus sis acciderit id estsemperessepuerum.” 
Chris Auchinvole 
: I heard him say it. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: In fact he said it just the other day. So I am going to undertake a painstaking analysis of the legislative history of Waitangi Day. 
Jacqui Dean 
: No! 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: For whoever called out “No” bad luck because I am going to start with 1941. Apparently—so Sir Walter Nash said in 1960—in 1941 a ceremony was brought into being in regard to Waitangi Day. So informally we had a Waitangi Day celebration. It was not until 11 October 1960 that the soon to be former Prime Minister the Rt Hon Walter Nash introduced a Waitangi Day Bill. The purpose of that bill Sir Walter said was to set apart 6 February in each year the anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840 as a day on which to commemorate the signing of the Treaty. In that original bill power was given to the Governor-General who by proclamation could set apart Waitangi Day as a public holiday in any locality or localities. I recommend that if any honourable members are interested they should read the debate in 1960 because it explains very clearly why the term “Waitangi Day” was so important and fundamental to New Zealand. 
Then in 1973 the next step was taken to have the day made a public holiday throughout New Zealand. It was Norman Kirk’s Government that introduced the New Zealand Day Act 1973 which basically renamed Waitangi Day as New Zealand Day. 
With a change of Government in 1975 the National Government under the then Prime Minister Robert Muldoon introduced a Waitangi Day bill that brought back the name “Waitangi Day”. The second reading on 2 September 1976 reported in  
Hansard 
 Volume 405 at page 2273 has an excellent speech made by the Minister of Internal Affairs the Hon D A Highet who explained the rationale behind the term “Waitangi Day” and the importance of Waitangi Day. I quote from some of what the late Mr Highet said: “The event that Waitangi Day commemorates was important to the early development of our nation. It was an occasion when two races treated together in mutual trust and expressed a desire for peace. Both races displayed a desire to protect the other from the consequences of misunderstanding and ignorance of the other’s customs.” Later on he said: “While recognising that relations between the races are still by no means perfect it is the ideals of the Treaty of Waitangi and the spirit in which it was signed that we wish to remember and preserve in our society—the spirit of mutual trust and the desire for the peaceful resolution of our problems.” It was then that the legislation enacted a change to New Zealand Day so that it became Waitangi Day as it always should have been. 
That is a potted history of the way the term has developed over the years— 
Darren Hughes 
: Tell us again! 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: If the member wishes me to. Walter Nash— 
Hon Member 
: He should have listened the first time. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The member asked for it. In 1960 Walter Nash introduced a Waitangi Day bill. In 1973 Norman Kirk introduced the New Zealand Day Act then in 1976 Rob Muldoon that great liberal introduced a Waitangi Day bill that brought back the name “Waitangi Day”. 
That is how we come to this misconceived legislation of Mr Dunne. He charitably analysed the submissions but the reality was that we received 22 submissions and most were utterly opposed to the bill—some in quite trenchant terms. The report of the select committee analyses the submissions. I particularly want to refer to the conclusion of that report because we were very strongly and unanimously of the view that the bill should not proceed. We saw absolutely no benefit in renaming Waitangi Day as New Zealand Day. Indeed we thought that such a change at such an important and sensitive time of our country’s history could foster social disharmony in New Zealand. It goes without saying that everyone on the committee saw that the term “Waitangi Day” is one of immense historic cultural and social importance tied as it is to 6 February. That is why we were of the opinion that there was absolutely no merit to this legislation. That is why everyone on the committee voted against the bill proceeding. 
There we have it. It is misconceived legislation. My advice to Mr Dunne is to pay more attention to New Zealand’s history. If he did he would see that the legislation is totally out of step with the mood of contemporary New Zealand. It really shows the dangers of not thinking things through. It is rather like his bizarre call last Friday for a complete review of the law of evidence 6 months after the Evidence Act 2006 had been passed by Parliament under the excellent chairmanship of the select committee of Mr Fairbrother who is cackling away there now. 
In conclusion if members look at international comparisons they will see that the French do not call Bastille Day “France Day” or “French Day” and the Americans do not call Independence Day “America Day”; both those days are tied to enormously significant historical events in the life of those countries. So too with Waitangi Day. It represents the occasion when Maori and Pakeha met—[ 
Interruption 
]—I have not finished—when the two races met and signed a treaty that was a treaty of trust and mutual respect. It is a sacred day and to change that day’s name to “New Zealand Day” would be singularly inappropriate. That is why the select committee strongly was of the view that the bill should not proceed and why National will not be supporting this legislation.