Tamihere John: Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill — First Reading 
Tamihere John: Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21178] 
JOHN TAMIHERE (Labour—Tamaki Makaurau) 
: 
 Initially I want to address the selective amnesia of members opposite. The member for Tauranga has often walked into this House and practised selective amnesia. He has practised selective amnesia to the extent that he was never here in the 1980s in the 1990s or in the year 2000. The member for Tauranga has often walked into this House and made much ado about nothing over many things and today we have before us the most pithy pious piece of paper this Parliament has ever been obliged to discuss. 
The reality is as follows. Matiu Rata a person whom that member would never know or come close to in terms of values virtues and actual principles brought in the bill that in 1975 became the Treaty of Waitangi Act. In 1978 we had our first tribunal. In 1985 we started to look at Maori relationships our constitution and the treaty. In 1986 the State-Owned Enterprises Act included in legislation for the first time the term “principles of the treaty”. That was championed in the Labour caucus by Maori members but particularly—and I acknowledge her tonight—by Mrs Tirikatene-Sullivan. Our constitution behoves us to observe those principles. 
The members opposite have selective dementia—they now have not just selective amnesia but also selective dementia—and no longer want to acknowledge that we have three estates in our great constitution. One happens to be the executive one happens to be the legislature and the third happens to be the judiciary. We do have what is called a fourth estate which at times now and then can kick in depending on whether it has a great relationship with Rodney Hide. Putting that to one side we have the fourth estate. The three main estates have ruled and they make up our constitution. The Court of Appeal in 1987 determined three principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. The member for Tauranga knows that. He abuses this House by laying a dirty little piece of politics before it in terms of “getting rid of the principles”—the three principles laid down by our Court of Appeal for this House. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: What are they? 
JOHN TAMIHERE 
: Gerry Brownlee the great spokesperson for the Maori people—Gerry Brownlee all the way from Fendalton all the way from that great Maori population in Christchurch—interjects in this House: “What are they?”. If he is thick enough to ask that question he does not deserve the answer. That member knows that the Court of Appeal determined in 1987 that there would be the principle of partnership the principle of active participation and protection and the principle of compensation and that they would be applicable on the merits of the particular case. That is what our Court of Appeal opined. 
The member for Tauranga did nothing—not in 1987 not in 1988 not in 1989 not in 1990 and not in the 12 to 15 years after that. When he was Deputy Prime Minister that member did nothing. He argued that we should not sell Kiwi assets and he signed off on the sale of 40000 hectares of land as soon as he had his hand on the pen as Deputy Prime Minister. Every day in every way the member from Tauranga wants to pretend to pursue the claim that the principles of the treaty do not exist or that we no longer know what they are. We know what they are and we have named them in the House. Mita Ririnui named the principles of the treaty. We in the Government have been remiss about one thing: not expressing those principles more openly and overtly and stating them for what they are because one of the great estates in our great constitution of which this Parliament is part has actually described them. They came through the judiciary and through the quasi-judicial processes of the Waitangi Tribunal. 
So I say to members opposite: do not be fudged by Gerry Brownlee that great spokesperson for the National Party. He knows nothing. He would not even know what the State-owned enterprises case was about but he is the Maori spokesperson. The member for Tauranga does not know what the principles are but he makes out that he is a practised and knowing lawyer. He does not know anything about it. Then we have Stephen Franks. God forbid! I do not know what is going on in our law schools these days but how those two members got their law degrees no one knows.