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:632;Page:4460] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak on the first reading of the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill. United Future will support the first reading but it sticks in the craw of our throat to do so. I repeat a line I used last time we spoke on this bill which is that it is a shabby vehicle but it is the only one leaving the station and we are very keen to hear from New Zealanders on this important issue. Our concerns are that whenever we pass legislation in this House that makes reference to the principles of the Treaty we have this extended diversionary debate at every step about what the principles are and why they not defined. We seem to spend an inordinate amount of time on this issue. 
One of the concerns we have is that whenever we refer to principles or to the spirit of a document we risk watering down the original text. In regard to this matter when we refer to the principles of the Treaty we would ask what that does to the original text. Some speakers have made out that there is no understanding in any department regarding what these principles are but I think that is false. Substantial work has been done in several quarters about the principles of the Treaty and that is part of the discussion I would like to have as to whether quantifying that and agreeing on it could be helpful. Rather than eliminating the phrase we could deepen our understanding so that when we refer to the principles of the Treaty if that is considered a desirable way forward we understand what we mean by that very very clearly. 
One of the things that most disturbs me about this bill is some of the comments in the explanatory note. For instance the sponsor of this bill has said that he does not want to get rid of references to the Treaty but actually he does because clearly he wants to eliminate all references to the expression “Treaty of Waitangi and its principles”. I think that is a disturbing thing. If New Zealand First members wanted to resubmit the bill with a different flavour they should have changed the commentary and made that clear. They were too lazy to do that and I find that disturbing. 
New Zealand First members talk about the opportunity that they believe this expression offers judges to become increasingly activist and liberal in their interpretation of the law and I think that discussion needs to be had to see whether clarity can be brought to it. Then it gets a bit more disturbing. They say under their third point in the explanatory note that as far as they are aware references to the principles of the Treaty have had no tangible benefit to date for Maori. I like the example mentioned by the Green member when she referred to the principle of “active protection” I think was the term she used as it applied to te reo and the good work that was able to do. 
The phrase in the explanatory note that really upsets me after stating that there has been no benefit to Maori from having references to the Treaty’s principles states: “… it has also surreptitiously created unrealistic expectations among Maori in relation to their entitlements from society.” I hope I am not the only one who finds that statement extremely disturbing. I would like to think that submitters to this bill will pick up on the commentary because it certainly is a very strong flavour that affects the bill. 
United Future will support the bill because we believe that discussions could be had that could be advantageous. But beyond the first reading unless there are substantial changes we will support it no further.